1951-12-20

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the heading of motions, by virtue of standing order 15 and citation 132 of Beauchesne's second edition, and on the basis also of standing order 45,
I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low):
That this day's sitting of the house continue without the usual intermission at one o'clock p.m. and at 6.15 o'clock p.m., and that the house shall not be adjourned at ten o'clock p.m. this day.
The purpose of this motion is to-


Mr. Drew:: The purpose is clear.


Mr. Fraser:: To allow Stanley Knowles to get home for Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -provide an opportunity for members of the house, who feel that they have the right to be home with their families on Christmas day, to vote on the contentious issue that is now before parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion? This motion is debatable.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: I would simply commend the Tather remarkable spirit of co-operation demonstrated by the C.C.F. with their friends across the house.


Mr. Chevrier:: You are just driving them [DOT]over here.


Mr. Coldwell:: I rise to a point of order. I think the remark of the leader of the opposition was most uncalled-for. The motion does not signify anything of the sort. It simply signifies that we wish to go on with the business of the house and conclude it in order that everybody connected with the house, not only the members, may have an opportunity to enjoy Christmas.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I think the leader of the opposition understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that this motion was not debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is debatable.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thought the leader of the opposition had understood that Mr. Speaker had said the motion was not debatable.


George Alexander Drew: I did not say anything about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I ruled that the motion is debatable, and the hon. member for Eglinton rose.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister misunderstood me. I made no comment about its being debatable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to say a brief word about this motion. In the first place it is rather amazing to have this particular type of motion coming from my hon. friend to the left, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), because every time that the question has arisen at the end of a session about carrying on without an intermission for lunch or dinner it has been the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has risen and pleaded the cause of the staff of the house.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: And the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. They have pointed out, and I think with reason and justice, that to expect the staff of the house to carry on without an intermission for lunch and dinner, or even to shorten the present two-hour intermissions, is very unfair to them. But consider what this motion proposes. It would eliminate the luncheon adjournment. It proposes to eliminate the dinner adjournment and to carry on indefinitely thereafter. I take it if the motion carries the house will not adjourn tonight without unanimous consent.


Mr. Abbott:: Or tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore what the motion involves is that the government with its big majority can have its members sit here in relays today while the staff of the house is worn to a frazzle; and the parties in the opposition, because their numbers are not so ample as those of this overgrown government majority, will not have the same opportunity of spreading out their forces to carry on a marathon session. This is in effect an attempt at applying closure.
Every hon. member of this house, if he faces up to the question, recognizes that we all would like to be home for Christmas. If members are not permitted to be home for

Business of the House
Christmas, as they should be, the responsibility will lie with the government. That responsibility lies with the government because, in the first place, they have not arranged the business of the house with any regard for dispatch or the commitments of hon. members of the house or their family obligations and, in the second place, because they are trying to wield a big club over the heads of members with a view to jamming through the house something that ought to have proper consideration, and which cannot be given proper consideration unless many members are to forgo the opportunity of being at home with their families at Christmas.
The motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg _ North Centre (Mr. Knowles) simply plays into the hands of the government-whether by design or not, only he knows. The fact of the matter is that nothing could better suit the purpose of the government than this motion which has been introduced by the C.C.F. whip and which undoubtedly is an attempt at applying closure in the house. If there is to be closure, let the government have the courage to try to apply it. That is a challenge to them!


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to debate this motion, but I do intend when the house is in session tomorrow, if the business has not been concluded, to give notice under the closure rule that it will be applied on Thursday, December 27.
As to this motion, I have no views about it. It is a matter which the house should decide on a free vote according to the views of each individual member. Personally I shall abstain from voting upon the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Drew: No. Mr. Speaker-


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has spoken already.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this. If I understand the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) correctly, we are now facing closure when we come back on the 27th. Therefore, what the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) has said was a true prophecy as to what we are facing. That is a responsibility which the government can assume if they wish, but I do want to say that I was amazed beyond words at the origin of this present motion.
In addition to all that the hon. member for Eglinton has so truly said about the attitude

taken in the past by the member who proposed this motion and the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell), I should like to point out that, if my memory does not entirely deceive me, they have taken the position that this was the worst and most tyrannical thing that could be done by a large majority, making it almost impossible for an opposition whose members are not as large as intelligent electors one day will make them, making it almost impossible for an opposition working under the difficulty of continuous sittings to do its proper work.
However, it is always possible for people to change their minds. I only wish to indicate my astonishment that those who have so well argued the other position could now so entirely change their views. It is not exactly convenient for me. I have to spend Christmas in Edmonton and as far as I can see I am going to have to walk there.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have some doubt whether under standing orders this motion is in order, but I leave that to Your Honour. I do not think it is myself. I do not think it can be described as being of a purely formal nature. I am inclined to think that under standing order 45 it is of a nature which would require at least some notice. I raise that point at the moment simply to leave it with Your Honour.
Questionable as I think the motion is with respect to its effect upon the proceedings and with respect to its propriety, it has served a most useful purpose already. It has made it very clear, abundantly clear, that it is the government's intention to ram through this legislation regardless of its merits and without permitting it that adequate discussion which legislation of this kind merits. This legislation at its very minimum affects directly at least 700,000 people in Canada, close to one million people, and it is to be rammed through the house after no more than five and a half days' discussion. On Monday we had the opportunity to debate it for rather less than half a day; then there was Tuesday, Wednesday and there will be Thursday and Friday. We now have notice that on Thursday, December 27, closure will be applied by the government.
Nothing could indicate more clearly the reluctance of the government to have the merits of this measure examined. Nothing could indicate more clearly its intention to assert the powers of a vast majority to force through legislation without an opportunity, so essential to the people of Canada, of examining the merits or demerits of the proposed measure.
We have seen in the motion appearing on the order paper under the name of the Prime

Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), to which he has made reference already this morning, evidence of the fact that the government intends to hold a club over the heads of the opposition, over the head of anyone who might desire to speak on this legislation. I can only say that while we resented it, while we thought it was unfortunate, we were prepared to accept the necessity which was being imposed upon us by the government of sitting here today, on Friday, which meant that many hon. members would not be home for Christmas, and then coming back on Thursday, December 27. That means that hon. members from the more distant parts of Canada may not be able to be home for Christmas at all if they wish to be here on the 27th. We accepted that necessity, but I feel bound to say that I regard it as un-Christian.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the
hon. member is now discussing the motion which is before the house at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister has
already referred to this other matter in the course of this debate for the purpose of indicating yet another threat, that of closure on the 27th. It seems to me that the Prime Minister's remarks make it essential to consider the two motions together. I am simply discussing the opportunities that are available to the house to debate this legislation. That question was most definitely raised by the motion now before the house. It becomes evident that the government, having done their best to throttle, and having succeeded in part in throttling, discussion in the committee, is now determined to throttle discussion in this house. The government has the majority. They control the procedure and if they determine to apply closure, while we might regret it, while it is our duty to point out to the people of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon.
member should discuss closure at this time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think he ought to
repeat his speech either.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you so rule, I can only
point out-


George Alexander Drew: I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has put enough silly remarks on the record without continuing today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can only say that I think
it regrettable that the Prime Minister should have been allowed to intervene in the debate and utter the threat of closure, which must
Business of the House
now be to the forefront of our minds in considering this whole question. If we are to be allowed the opportunity of replying-


Mr. Speaker:: I felt that I gave the hon.
member ample opportunity to reply to the few remarks that were made regarding closure. I want to be fair with him. I am doing my best to be fair. What I am bringing to his attention is that the motion before the house at the present time is the one moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, relating strictly, Your Honour, to the motion moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I would point out that the effect of that motion is to thwart effective discussion, and to do so almost as effectively as the motion referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I would now deal with the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on that basis. The point that is well known to the member for Winnipeg North Centre is that the opposition party, those who are left here as the member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has pointed out, is limited in numbers. A motion of this sort to compel the continuation of discussion all day without a break simply places the opposition party at a disadvantage with respect to the government party, and it multiplies the disadvantage which this party already experiences as a result of that disparity in numbers.
I have simply this to say. While our efforts are aimed at discussing the merits of this legislation to bring out in full the disadvantages which will accrue to the consumers of Canada, if the government is going to join with the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in thwarting discussion of this question, we have no alternative but to accept the inevitable. It is quite nonsensical for the Prime Minister at this stage, after there has already been this conclusive evidence of collusion between the government, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit party in this regard-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. There has been no collusion so far as this motion is concerned. It is my own idea.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say it is quite nonsensical for the Prime Minister to say, after the evidence we have had of the degree of co-operation that exists between the government, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit on this motion.

Business of the House
that there may be a free vote of the house. Such a proposition simply begs common sense. However, the situation being as it is, we must accept it, since the C.C.F. and the Social Credit are now combining with the government majority to force this legislation through without adequate discussion.
I do ask the member for Winnipeg North Centre to bear in mind that in the future he can hardly expect that his plaintive cries with respect to the way the government majority abuses its powers and privileges will be received with any sympathy, in view of the fact that he has, by virtue of this arrangement which has all the appearance of being preconcerted with them, given them this splendid opportunity to abuse their powers in a way that the government has never done before in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say a word on the point of order raised by the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) during his remarks. I shall not reply further to the substance of his remarks. I have already denied categorically the charge he made, and that settles that. But he raised a question as to whether or not this motion was covered by standing order 45. May I draw to Your Honour's attention citation 65 of Beauchesne's third edition, which says:
When the house intends to sit later than eleven o'clock, a motion may be made during the sitting, and without notice having been previously given, "that the house do not adjourn at eleven o'clock today." The reason why no notice is required is that standing order 45 which provides for notices to be given says that the rules shall not apply "to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house."
My motion includes not only sitting beyond the usual hour of adjournment, which is covered quite clearly by the citation I have just read, but it also includes sitting during the intermissions otherwise provided. On that point, may I draw Your Honour's attention, and the attention of the member for Kamloops as well as all members of his party, to page 1402 of Hansard, March 11, 1949. On that occasion we were in the midst of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. At the usual hour for supply the member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) had just finished speaking and the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was seeking to get the floor so as to speak when the house resumed at 7.30 p.m. From page 1402 I read:


George Alexander Drew: Before we rise, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I would move that we sit through the dinner hour, in view of the fact that the debate is to terminate this evening by reason of the motion of the government. That will make it possible for the debate definitely to conclude this evening.


Mr. Howe:: I would second the motion.


Mr. Quelch:: I move the adjournment of the
debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is moved by Mr. Drew, seconded by Mr. Howe, that notwithstanding standing order No. 6, Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock, but that the debate be continued.
Now I ask all hon. members to note the person who wondered whether that procedure was in order.


Mr. Casselman:: He used the words "with consent".


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) is entering this argument, but he is on the record, too. The person who expressed amazement at that being in order was the member for Winnipeg North Centre. Hansard reads:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does it not require unanimous consent for a motion of this kind to be made without notice?


Arza Clair Casselman: He got consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.
The next notation on Hansard records Mr. Speaker speaking to the point of order that I raised.


Mr. Speaker:: According to standing order 45
notice is not necessary for this motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the position is quite clear. I have given the house a precedent involving no less a person than the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) himself for the present motion. I submit, therefore, the motion is in order on the basis of standing order 45.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought probably I should dispose of the question of whether or not the motion is in order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I say a word on that point before you rule? I accept the record of Hansard as read by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I want to point out here that the motion referred only to sitting through meal hours, whereas-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know why hon. members opposite should find a simple statement of fact so amusing. They are easily amused so I suppose one must accept the idle laughter which occurs. May I point out to Your Honour that the motion before the house in 1949 concerned continuing the sitting during one meal hour and one meal hour only, whereas the motion now before the house would compel us to sit through meal hours as well as dispensing with the usual hour of adjournment tonight. In that case, I think I should ask Your Honour to consider the whole of standing order 45, together with the citations in Beauchesne's second edition referring thereto. Standing order 45 says:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, a resolution or

address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper, but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is one citation in which this rule has been applied, as follows. Citation 357 reads:
As a general rule every motion proposed in the house requires notice unless it is of a formal or uncontentious character, or raises a question of privilege.
This motion could hardly be called purely formal, still less of an uncontentious character. This goes far beyond the other motion to which reference has been made. It provides for a continuous sitting during both meal hours and dispenses with the hour for adjournment. It goes on in citation 358:
Motions applying to the business or arrangements of the house as a rule require notice,-
Certainly this motion applies to the business or arrangements of the house in a most unusual manner. It completely upsets all the arrangements which have been made for the business of the house as they were to apply today. It goes on to say:
-but some are of such a purely formal nature that by general consent notice is not insisted upon.
The words themselves, Mr. Speaker, show the distinction between the type of motion for which notice is not required and the type of motion that we have before us for which, I submit, notice is required; because the citations make it clear that those for which notice is not required are those of a purely formal nature where, by general consent, notice is not insisted upon. In view of the citations which, I suggest, make it clear that the precedents in the past applying this rule have laid it down that only those which are of such a general, uncomplicated, slight or trifling nature that, by consent, notice may be dispensed with, can be proceeded with without notice having been given, but that this motion, which is of a highly contentious nature, and which completely disrupts and reverses the whole business of the house as outlined for the day, is of such a nature that notice must be given.


Mr. Speaker:: On the question of order, may I say that I have listened to what has been said. As has been pointed out, other motions have been made in this house respecting the hours or times of sitting without previous notice having been given. In Beauchesne's second edition in citation 34, I observe the following:
No notice is required for a motion relating to "the times of meeting or adjournment of the house." (S O.
Business of the House
Standing order 45 has been referred to by a number of members. The citation goes on to say:
The word "times" is translated by "heures" in the French version of S.O. 45. It seems therefore that if a motion does not relate to the hour but to the day at which the house is to sit or adjourn, a notice must be given.
The motion before the house does not refer to a day. It relates to the hour.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, without interrupting you, may I make a comment on that point which you have raised?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have touched on the very point that is in issue on this motion. It is quite clear that if this motion goes through the house will not adjourn. For that reason I submit, on the very point you made, Mr. Speaker, this motion is not tenable under the reference which has been given.


Mr. Speaker:: If the motion referred to days, I would agree with the leader of the opposition that it would not be in order. May I read the motion.
That this day's sitting of the house continue without the usual intermission at one o'clock p.m. and at 6.15 o'clock p.m., and that the house shall not be adjourned at ten o'clock p.m. this day.
It distinctly says that this motion refers to this day only. I am satisfied that this motion refers to time and not to days. Citation 34 in Beauchesne's second edition goes on to say:
See decision given by Speaker Rhodes on May 21, 1920.
I have sent for Hansard of that day and it has just arrived. The reference reads as follows:
Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) : I beg to move the motion of which I gave notice yesterday:
"That when this house adjourns on Friday, the 21st instant, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, the 25th instant."


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out, as I did yesterday, that this motion requires two days' notice and only one day's notice has been given. It can therefore only be entertained by unanimous consent.


Sir Robert  Borden@: I do not know whether it is applicable or not, but my attention has been directed to the language of rule 40 which says that the rule requiring notice shall not apply to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the interpretation which
has been given to the section under that rule is that it refers to the hour for meeting because in the French edition "heure" is used. That being so, as at present advised, I am still of the opinion that two days' notice would be required to be given.
I would agree with the decision given by Mr. Speaker Rhodes, and that if this motion
27.58

Business of the House
referred to days it would not be in order. But as it refers to time, I would rule that the motion is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a question of you, Mr. Speaker? It is somewhat difficult to follow the purport of that motion without having the text of it before us-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: The ruling has been made.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to ask a brief question, I will hear him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, do you construe that motion as requiring that the house adjourn at midnight tonight or that the house will continue to sit through the night?


Mr. Speaker:: Notice not having been given
I	would not construe this motion in such a way that it could interfere with tomorrow's sitting of the house. If debate continued until that time, I would adjourn the house in order that the sitting could be called for tomorrow at the hours prescribed by the rules.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that what you have just said does not clear up the difficulty I am having as to the effect of the motion, without having the text of it before me. What happens at midnight tonight? Does the house, under the terms of that resolution, rise or is the session continuous until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning when tomorrow's session begins?


An hon. Member:: Sure.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the house could not continue to sit until tomorrow at
II	o'clock. I think 1 would have to adjourn it before 11 o'clock so that the house could commence another sitting. I could not allow this motion to interfere with the order calling for a sitting tomorrow.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not my province to put questions to you, Mr. Speaker, let alone to question your ruling; but does not that have the effect of carrying this resolution to the point where it affects the days of sitting?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the motion is passed, it means that the house is not simply sitting today; the house will be sitting tomorrow from twelve o'clock midnight until eleven o'clock a.m. tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: It might affect more than one calendar day but it does not interfere with the sitting days of this house.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out something that

should be pointed out at this stage in order to correct the record. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on an earlier occasion left the impression that, by my own request or by my own suggestion in this house, I supported the very principle he is putting forward. I am not in any way debating the decision that has been given, but I must confess my surprise that the hon. member, who prides himself on his correctness and his respect for the records of the house, should have sought to leave that impression, because this is what Hansard says at page 1402:


George Alexander Drew: Before we rise, Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house, I would move that we sit through the dinner hour, in view of the fact that the debate is to terminate this evening by reason of the motion of the government. That will make it possible for the debate definitely to conclude this evening.
And on that occasion, as an evidence of the unusual measure of harmony which existed, the record says:


Clarence Decatur Howe: X would second the motion.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Consent was refused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Consent was not given; I objected, and the record shows it.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I do not
want to take very much time at this moment to discuss the motion before this house; I wish only to make it clear that I seconded the motion, and for a very good reason. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there was no collusion whatever amongst the government, C.C.F., and Social Credit party on this. This suggestion was made to me; I thought it was a good one and I agreed to second it because I did think it had merit; that is all. '


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the hon. member's definition of coEusion?


Solon Earl Low: I know the hon. member for Kamloops must be very disappointed, and I sympathize with him-in his deep conviction he is likely to be a little intemperate. I can understand that. I have been in a similar position before. But I would just point out that I do not care what you caU it, whether you caU it coEusion, conspiracy or what, the point is the suggestion was made, just as suggestions are often made in this house. I thought it was a good one, and I lent my support and seconded the motion. In that regard, let me say one other thing. I sympathize with any group in this house that has a deep conviction and desires to bring out the fullest possible measure of discussion in connection with any proposition put before hon. members. No matter what group it is, I think they should have ample opportunity for discussion. I have been in a position

similar to that now occupied by the members of the Progressive Conservative party. I seem to recall that in 1945, when there were thirteen of us in this house, the Social Credit group put on a fairly strong battle against the Bretton Woods agreement in this house. We discussed it pro and con for several days. I remember, Mr. Speaker, there was a suggestion then that closure might be applied', but we did not let it go to the point where closure would be applied because we did not think that was wise. We brought before the house every argument we could; we did our level best to convince the members of the house, including the members of the Conservative party, that Bretton Woods was not in the best interests of Canada; that it should be defeated and not be allowed to pass. But after we saw that we had failed to convince the Progressive Conservative, the Liberal and the C.C.F. parties, and when it was suggested that perhaps closure ought to be applied, we thought then that in a democracy and in a parliament it was wise to let the matter come to a vote, to express our conviction by vote and then simply say to the government: "It is your responsibility. You have brought the matter in; you have failed to be convinced by our arguments, and from now on it is your baby and not ours." The same situation is true here, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I interrupted the hon. member for Kamloops when he was discussing a possible motion for closure. I do not think I should give the hon. member for Peace River any further opportunity to discuss that motion.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much. I will simply confine myself to the motion before the house. Let me say this with respect to it. I think that ample discussion has been made possible on this bill now before us. I have no desire to close off anybody. As a matter of fact, my idea is to give those who wish to speak on this bill more opportunity to do so. May I point out that if this motion is carried hon. members-I am not going to mention any particular group-will have no less than thirty-two hours to discuss this bill. I would estimate that mathematically speaking there would be opportunity for at least forty 40-minute speeches. I am prepared to sit and listen to these forty speeches, and I will do so with an open mind. If they can convince me in the forty 40-minute speeches that it would be a good thing to vote against this bill, then I will vote against it. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, there would be greater opportunity for discussion on the bill if this motion passed, than otherwise.
The second reason that I suggest we pass the motion-I am thinking of two groups
Business of the House
now-is this: I am thinking of the staff of this house. It is all right for the hon. member for Kamloops to laugh, but let us not forget that the members of the staff are anxious to have some Christmas holidays. I am not going to argue what the government should do or should not do. The government has taken a certain position at the moment. I am trying to put before you the reasons why I support this motion, Mr. Speaker. The members of the staff have a perfect right to at least a Christmas holiday, and I imagine that in order to get it they will be as prepared as I am to go straight through until the house rises sometime Friday evening, so that they will have an uninterrupted holiday. There are members of this house from the far west and from the far east who wish to get away in order to be home with their families at Christmas.


Mr. Cardiff:: Nobody is stopping them.


Solon Earl Low: These people could not possibly get back here for the 27th-it is just impossible. I am thinking of them, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then why did the Prime Minister make such a motion?


Solon Earl Low: I have no axe to grind personally, because I live here, and I will be quite prepared to sit just as long as the house desires to sit in order to give full and fair consideration to everything that is before us; but in all fairness let me suggest this. There has been plenty of opportunity, and there will be plenty of opportunity, to discuss this bill. It is disappointing, I know, to people who have a deep conviction that it should not be passed, to find that they are not going to be able perhaps to carry on indefinitely and obstruct the passing of the bill. I appreciate that feeling, and I want the Progressive Conservatives to know that I appreciate it because I have been in their place on previous occasions. But the democratic thing to do when you fail to convince the house that your position is sound is to put it to a vote, vote against it, and your conscience is clear and the responsibility rests upon the government. That is why I am going to vote for the motion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Your last remarks will rise up some day to mock you. Mark my words!


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone here has a very high appreciation of the qualities of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and we are perfectly prepared to accept his statement-and of course the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-that there was no collusion or anything of that kind in connection with

Business of the House
this motion. I accept the statement unreservedly. But as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out the day before yesterday, -there is an amazing degree of mental telepathy which apparently functions in connection with these matters; and the cheers with which it was greeted on -the other side of the house suggest-


Mr. Noseworlhy:: This is not the first time that you sided with the government.


George Clyde Nowlan: -that there was someone on the government side dreaming of more than a white Christmas last evening.
I was particularly struck with the reference of the hon-. member for Peace River to a debate which was carried on some years ago-I believe he said it was in 1945. In 1945, with thirteen members in- the house, as I recall his statement, they debated a matter for three or four days. He pointed that out as an example of proper parliamentary tactics; but I would suggest that in this connection there are forty-six members in this group, and if the hon. member for Peace River feels that three days was at least not an exorbitant time for thirteen members to discuss a matter, this matter which is before the house at the present time-I do not refer to the motion, but the bill-has been discussed for less than three days.


Solon Earl Low: I point out to the hon. member that at the time we were discussing it we sat from three o'clock in the afternoon until six, and from eight to eleven.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And no attempt was made to extend the night sitting, either.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am simply suggesting that as an example used by the hon. member for Peace River himself, and that there would be at least, I think, a presumption that more time should be spent in the discussion of this subject than has been spent.


Solon Earl Low: That is what we are getting at.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Peace River has displayed a forensic style this session which many of us never recognized in him before. He has shown himself to have a humorous and classic style. One occasion in particular was when he suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) get his boys together, and then he went on to suggest that at bedtime he must sing "Where is my wandering boy tonight?"
Speeches such as that have shown him as a classic humorist, and I am sure his speeches will be recalled and read by the readers of Hansard generations hence. But when he refers to the fact, with a perfectly straight
TMr. Nowlan.]
face-and if he ever played poker, I am sure he would have looked that way with a poor hand-that after all he was doing this for the benefit of the opposition, so that forty members might make 40-minute speeches, that, Mr. Speaker, was the height of his humour. No doubt he attained a dizzy eminence he will never forget, and never repeat. Because the hon. member, having had that experience- and I presume he was here then-must have realized the strain of those thirteen who talked for the three days.
But they were not facing such a monolithic monumental machine as we are facing today. The difficulty today is even greater. The hon. member has referred to the work required to be done by the staff at Christmastime. We all realize that the staff has to have Christmas. He referred to the difficulties of members. Well, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), who lives as far away from this house as anyone else, has expressed dissatisfaction with this amendment. And I might say that I live almost as far away in the other direction.
Those of us from the extreme parts of Canada want to see this matter debated. We want to see it debated reasonably, and we do not believe it can be done if this motion is adopted. It is true that there have been motions adopted before, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out. But when you get the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) joining in a motion, then I suggest we see a degree of unanimity which is most unusual.
Nevertheless, although I have no doubt that this motion as submitted does not transgress the rules of the house, I do not think it is one which permits orderly debate. I do not think it is one which should be accepted by the house at the Christmas season. After all, some of us are looking forward to having a Christmas tree set up on the floor of the House of Commons on Christmas morning. We thought that our brilliant friend who spoke the night before last so ably (Mr. LaCroix) and the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) both had the dimensions requisite for the occasion. One might act as Santa Claus and the other as Santa Claus's assistant. But if we are going to have a motion like this, to spoil the Christmas spirit entirely, then I say we should not be asked to accept it.
Since this motion is debatable-and Your Honour has ruled it to be debatable-it is

therefore amendable. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the hours of sitting this day be from 11 o'clock a.m. to 1 p.m., from 2.30 to 6.30 p.m., and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.


An hon. Member:: Those are the regular sitting hours.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Nowlan has moved,
seconded by Mr. Hees:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the hours of sitting this day be from 11 o'clock a.m. to 1 p.m., from 2.30 to 6.30 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Now we know.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared on this occasion to wait indefinitely for the house to come to some semblance of order.


An hon. Member:: The amendment is out of order.


An hon. Member:: Easier to wait than to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the leader of the opposition has the floor.


An hon. Member:: Merry Christmas.


George Alexander Drew: I propose to wait until there is order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house is one which does extend the already unusually long sitting hours by another fifteen minutes, and it will also give an opportunity to place before the house views in regard to certain of the arguments which have been made, and which it seems to me should be in the minds of members who support this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may proceed.


George Alexander Drew: I would not wish to deprive hon. members who are sitting in the house of the opportunity of hearing what is going to be said by myself or by others, because of the conferences which are being held behind the curtains outside the house. It is for that reason that, as a courtesy to the house, I propose to pause at any point where I feel that the members may not be able to hear what I have to say.
The motion before the house to which the present amendment has been moved is one
Business of the House
which comes very strangely from the hon. member who made it and, may I say, from the party which in this case gives it its primary support. The secondary support, of course, is more important and more conspicuous. And it is more strange, because if there has been one party in the house, and if there has been one member in the house who has been insistent not only upon the observance of the ordinary practices but of other things, it has been the hon. member who has moved this motion. I would suggest that there is much more before the house than simply a motion to continue this day without interruption.
The Prime Minister made it quite clear why the government is supporting the motion. He made it quite clear also-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I beg your pardon; I made it quite clear that the government was not supporting this motion, that the government was taking the position that members of the house should vote freely, according to each one's individual convictions, and that personally I would take no part in the vote upon the motion.


George Alexander Drew: Then, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, let me put it this way, that we had a very clear indication of the way in which the Prime Minister wanted the house to vote on this, because he indicated quite clearly that, if as a result of a motion now on the order paper we should return next week, it was his intention to have on the order paper a closure motion which would dispose of any further effective debate of the matter now before us.
I would point out to hon. members who are seeking this indecent haste at this stage of the session that there are on the order paper a number of very important matters, in addition to the extremely important matter which is under consideration, or perhaps will be under consideration after the lunch hour. I would point out that we have on the order paper the orders that the house go into committee of supply and that the house go into committee of ways and means, which should not stand in the name of the Prime Minister but should stand in the name of the minister of make-believe because of course there is no intention of calling them, nor was there at the time they were put on the order paper. Then the next order of business is No. 3, the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 15, an act to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That stands in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would think there

Business of the House
is a great deal to be said about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at this time, and particularly in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has returned recently from fairly extensive travels. It would provide an excellent opportunity for a full presentation to the house of the information he has gained and particularly any additional opinions he may have in regard to the subject matter of this debate. We have not yet had an opportunity for a discussion of these subjects or adequate comment by other members with respect to the very useful contribution the minister could make to debate on this subject at this time.
The next item on the order paper is the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 23, an act to amend the Government Annuities Act. That is of course a very important matter, as has been indicated by the discussion that has already taken place and by the indication of the views of certain members with respect to what the bill should and should not contain. The measure affects many thousands of people in this country and is one which I feel sure hon. members will wish to have fully and adequately discussed.
The next item is resuming the adjourned debate on a motion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) for the second reading of Bill No. 26, an act to amend the Public Works Act. A very useful debate took place on that bill when it was before the house a few days ago. If the members of the Conservative party in this house express some hope that the government is open to conviction on another measure that will be discussed after we proceed to orders of the day, it is because of the fact that extended debate did persuade the Minister of Public Works that it was wise to pay some attention to the argument put forward, and he therefore indicated that he proposed to make an amendment which would to some extent meet the views that had been expressed. We have not yet been informed as to what the amendment is so that it is impossible for us to express an opinion in advance. If it should be that the amendment was not in accordance with the views that have been expressed by the opposition then we would most certainly wish adequate time to debate a measure that has such far-reaching conclusions and would depart so greatly from that principle which the minister, in his usual genial manner, said that he wished to reassert before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order.
Surely the law of relevancy applies in this debate. Is it in order for the leader of the opposition, speaking to the amendment of the

hon. member for Annapolis-Kings to my motion, to discuss all the other items on the order paper?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Surely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking the Speaker and not the hon. member for Peterborough West. Does the law of relevancy not apply to this debate?


George Alexander Drew: If I might answer that, I would point out that I am seeking simply in the briefest manner possible to-


George James McIlraith: Seeking to take time.


George Alexander Drew: -indicate to hon. members the significance of the items on the order paper and what we are still called upon to discuss and should be prepared to discuss in an orderly manner, subjects which go beyond the bill that is mainly in the minds of hon. members who have already spoken. I submit that unless I do so I am unable to emphasize how important it is that we should not accept a device which would in this way curtail the adequate discussion of other measures even if some hon. members may feel that we should rush through the bill which will be first on the orders of the day when we come to that point. I was referring to the act to amend the Public Works Act, and I think I have indicated-


George James McIlraith: You were debating it.


George Alexander Drew: -that some persons have a considerable interest-


Mr. Robinson:: What about a ruling on the point of order?


George Alexander Drew: Of course I observe the Speaker's rulings at all times, but as the Speaker has not risen to make any ruling on the subject I am continuing my remarks. The next item-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did raise a point of order and probably I should refer to it. He is correct when he says that the debate at this time must be relevant to the amendment before the house. I would ask hon. members so to direct their remarks that they are relevant to the amendment now before the house.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was
exactly what I was seeking to do. There are only two more items, but I would suggest that hon. members recognize how important they are. The next one is resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice for the second reading of Bill No. 36, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and on the proposed amendment thereto. That, as is known to all members, will be

che first item called after we pass to orders of the day. Then the next item is a resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, to exclude certain areas of land from the provisions of section 1 of chapter 47 of the statutes of 1950 and thus render such areas eligible for assistance. The motion now before us, to which an amendment has been moved, is one which would obviously carry the debate forward on Bill No. 36, but the last item to which I have referred is a subject which is still simply in the form of a motion. The bill is not even formally before the house. Therefore we must have due regard as to whether all the ordinary rules with respect to the availability of legislation and the procedure on legislation should be disregarded. I have mentioned these items on the order paper, to say nothing of other matters that are on here to which I do not intend to refer-


Mr. Sinnoli:: Mention the questions too.


George Alexander Drew: Yesterday I thought the hon.
member who has just interjected was acting as parliamentary assistant to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, but now he apparently has constituted himself in a new role as parliamentary assistant to the Speaker..


George James McIlraith: He gets your goat every time.


An hon. Member:: Three-job John.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We did not
introduce this subject.


George Alexander Drew: I suggest to any hon. members who indicate impatience on this subject that we did not introduce this motion-


George James McIlraith: Just the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: -and that it really is the choice of other members that this subject is now under discussion. If the mover of the motion seeks the consent of the house for its withdrawal, of course the discussion will end immediately.


An hon. Member:: You are now speaking on the amendment to the motion.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I do not think he knows what he is speaking on.


George Alexander Drew: I do not intend to speak unless hon. members who remain in the house observe some measure of order. This is one occasion when I have quite clearly indicated that I am not going to interrupt hon. members who are interrupting me. That is the only reason that I pause on these occasions.
Business of the House
I come now to some of the remarks that have been made in support of the motion to which there is now an amendment. The leader of the Social Credit party referred to the desire that he had that there should be adequate Christmas holidays for the members of the staff. I assure the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that there is no member of this house, so far as I know, who is not anxious to assure adequate holidays for the members of the staff. But may I remind him that if there is any question raised about adequate holidays for the staff there is only one place where the responsibility for that situation rests, and that is with the government and completely with the government.
After all, why are we confronted with the necessity for this debate to crowd through important business during a period when no adequate supervision can be given? Why this indecent haste at this time? Of course, we accept the statement of the hon. member who has moved the motion that there was no previous discussion but that it just happened to be a meeting of minds that we saw so spontaneously displayed this morning. Even accepting that, may I point out that the reason there is this problem before this house at the moment is that we met in October to deal with certain matters that could have been most properly and most expeditiously dealt with if we had simply continued the session that was then under way, as we requested at that time. If that had been done there would have been no necessity for a new speech from the throne. We have seen evidence in the conduct of the government that there was no necessity.
We have seen the speech from the throne. It was nothing more than an agenda which was placed before this house and which could have been placed before the house without those formalities. What it did was to provide the opportunity for an extended debate which carried this session forward to the point where we are now within a few days of Christmas. This government must accept full responsibility. I am sure there has never been since 1867 a session of this parliament when there was so little planning of the business of the house, when there was so little apparent attempt to make use of the committees in the house in a way that would produce results. We had committee after committee held back until it was so late that it was impossible to perform the task for which it was appointed. For instance, we had the example of the committee on defence expenditures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Probably the hon. member is getting a little beyond the amendment.

Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: I was trying to reassure the hon. member for Peace River that if he is so concerned about the Christmas holidays it would be advisable to indicate to the government that there is a way in which all these things can be dealt with in an orderly manner and that is to recognize the importance of what we now have on the order paper and to seek to persuade the government to adjourn this session and to come back with adequate time to deal with the business before us.
I suggest that this motion, to which an amendment has now been moved, goes far beyond any question of simply seeking to expedite the debate on Bill No. 36. This motion was placed in its true perspective when the Prime Minister indicated that in addition to the, shall we say, veiled threat contained in the notice of motion, if we did not terminate all discussion by tomorrow night we would follow the unusual practice of interfering with the holidays of the staff to whom the hon. member for Peace River has referred by coming back here on the 27th.
Then just to buttress the thing, just to remove any doubt that the notice of motion was intended as a club, a legitimate club of course, if the government seeks to use it, the Prime Minister pointed out this morning that there would be a notice of closure on the order paper if we did follow this unusual procedure of coming back next week. The members of the party which I have the honour to lead are quite prepared to come back whenever it is decided by this house that they should come back. We are quite prepared to do the business of the house.
We have been asking the government for a long time to place the business of this house before the members so that we would have adequate opportunity to discuss this extremely important measure and others. If there is any doubt about adequate Christmas holidays, those doubts have been raised by the fact that Bill No. 36 along with the others has been held back so that under pressure of the Christmas holidays hon. members might be persuaded to restrict their remarks on a subject which otherwise they would have regarded as being a matter of very considerable importance and calling for extensive debate.
If hon. members of this house submit to the double threat, first, that they follow the unusual course of coming back between Christmas and New Year's when orderly business would suggest an adjournment until a later date, and, second, of closure if we do not submit to the government's first threat, then I suggest that this house surrender its authority to the government and cease to avail itself of the rights under the

rules of assuring that there will be adequate time for discussion of public business in this house.
If this motion goes through it will be more than a motion with respect to the business of today. It is an acceptance by every member who votes for the motion of the proposition that if the government does not want any subject adequately debated it will be only necessary for it to carry on business in a sufficiently disorderly way up to the closing days of a session so that members under the natural pressure of a desire to get home for customary holidays will submit to threats such as are placed before us and will regard their own convenience-I repeat, will regard their own convenience-as being above the business of this country.
After all, why is the press gallery at the end of this chamber? That press gallery is at the end of this chamber for a reason that is of importance to every Canadian and everyone who believes in democracy.


An hon. Member:: That is what you are playing up to.


George Alexander Drew: That press gallery is an integral part of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr.   Sinr.oit@: There will be headlines
tonight.


George Alexander Drew: The press gallery is an integral part of this house for the purpose of making available to the people of Canada information about the debates which take place in this house. There is a limit beyond which the press gallery and the newspapers of this country cannot go in adequately informing the people of this country about their own business. If, through the device of continuous sittings, we crowd so much business together, there will not be adequate space under any circumstances for even a most condensed account of what the government may put forward as reasons for the legislation they are asking the members to support. After all, Mr. Speaker, I think that, no matter to what party we may belong, every member of this house should do everything within his power to make sure that the views of the government concerning the legislation which is put before us for consideration shall be adequately and effectively reported, within the normal limits of the press space available, and within the availability of the wire space of the members of the press gallery who must send their messages throughout the whole country. I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that in the discussions that have already taken place there has been reference

to the word "obstruction", and that it has been suggested the members of this party are obstructing the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that has come up during the debate on this motion.


George Alexander Drew: I shall be very happy to send Your Honour a copy of Hansard which will indicate that the word was used. I took it down at the time it was used. In any event, I can dispose of it because I would simply point out that the discussion of this motion, and the amendment that has been moved to it, is something that relates to the fundamental question of whether we are going to insist upon an orderly method of conducting the business of the house, or whether we are going to see the same pattern repeated year after year. At the end of each session we have seen the necessity for motions to crowd the work in the closing days. It is utterly impossible to avoid the conclusion that this is done for the deliberate purpose of preventing adequate discussion of extremely important matters. There is one way, and one way only, of making sure that no such impression can be conveyed to the people of this country, and that is for the government to indicate that it will adjourn until a date in January when the business of this house that is still before us can be adequately discussed.
It would be a reflection on the sense of responsibility of this house if, with the important measures that are still on the order paper, we hastened through these matters now, abrogating the ordinary rules in regard to the time at which the various stages shall be dealt with, and also avoiding the possibility of any adequate consideration being given to them. I would strongly urge the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to reconsider the motion he has placed before this house, and to recognize he is establishing a precedent. He is also establishing as acceptable practice the delaying of business until the closing days, and the willingness of members to deny themselves any opportunity for orderly and regular debate, and submitting to the government demand that we carry forward the business without further consideration.
I have taken the time I have to discuss this motion, Mr. Speaker, because I think that the amendment is an amendment which only slightly extends the time for debate, I admit, but nevertheless if the amendment is accepted then it will be an assertion by this house that, while we are willing to sit somewhat longer we are not willing to
Business of the House
completely abandon the opportunity that members should have to be in the chamber while any important business is under discussion. I can only repeat my expression of surprise that the member for Winnipeg North Centre should seek to deny to any member the opportunity that he should have to be here continuously if he so desires, at a time when extremely important measures are under consideration. It is not enough to say that there will be different shifts moving back and forward between the dining room and this chamber to an extent that will maintain a quorum; that is not enough. It may be that those who are called upon to take the meal shift might want to hear something that is being said at that particular time. The ordinary rules of this house are designed to assure that an opportunity of that kind will, at all times, be presented.
In this house we have never accepted as a regular practice the idea of continuous sittings, for the quite sound reason that where important measures are before this house no member should find it necessary to miss some discussion which he regards as of importance simply to meet the ordinary demands of sustenance. I strongly urge the members to support the amendment that has been put forward, and I would urge those of the party presenting this motion to support that amendment to preserve the principle that we are not going to be hurried into a consideration of public business simply because the government held back the business until these late days. We could do exactly what we have done before, adjourn until January and then when we meet in January deal with these things in an orderly way when there will be no suggestion that anyone is accusing the other of obstructing, or delaying the work. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the debate would be much shorter if we met in January when there would be no threat being held over the members of this house, because I have no hesitation in saying that it is in recognition of those threats that I have taken as long as I have to discuss the amendment that is now before us.


Major James William Coldwell: What is it my hon. friends are anxious to do when they say they are anxious to debate resale price maintenance? For an hour and a half we have been discussing a procedural motion.


George Alexander Drew: We did not introduce the
motion.


Major James William Coldwell: I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that if hon. members are so anxious

Business of the House
to debate the bill, then we should settle the procedural matter now by taking a vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And destroy the rights of minorities in parliament by doing so.


Major James William Coldwell: With regard to the rights of minorities, I know of no other parliament in the British commonwealth where a prolonged debate of this description could continue.


George Alexander Drew: I know of no other parliament where we find business conducted in this way.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not defending the government's manner of bringing in the business in this session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are making it possible for them to carry on.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe that every aspect of resale price maintenance has been debated already, and that anything that is said further by me or by anybody else will be repetitious.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are biased.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that, to be perfectly in order, in a democratic parliament I think the house should make the decision. The procedure has been debated. Let us take the vote.


Mr. Howard Meeker (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Another filibuster.


Howard William Meeker: -I am rather surprised at the motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr, Knowles).


An hon. Member:: What are you reading from?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must be given an opportunity to be heard.


Howard William Meeker: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised at the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Along with the rest of the members of this house I recognize the inconvenience that the [DOT]continuance of this debate is causing for hon. members. But I should also like to remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that at the present time there are, in Korea and in Europe, thousands of our Canadian soldiers who are just as anxious as we are here to be home with their families for Christmas. It may be said that they joined the Canadian army of their own free will, that what they are doing is their duty and they are doing their duty. I do not think any of us are forced to be here. I think we are .all here in Ottawa of our own free will.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Where has he been all winter?
IMr. Coldwell.}


George Alexander Drew: He was overseas during the war.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Where has he been all winter? That is what I wanit to know.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard William Meeker: I was also surprised at the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) for seconding this motion to continue this sitting without further interruption in the debate. Inexperienced as I am in parliamentary matters, even I recognize what they are trying to do. As I have been sitting here this morning, the thought struck me as to something that I wish had been done years ago. There are sitting here this morning, I am quite sure, members who were sitting here in 1945, and they are expressing their opinions and trying in every way possible to get themselves home for Christmas. I only wish that in 1945 those same members had tried as hard to get the Canadian soldier who was left stranded in Europe home for Christmas-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You do not like it.


Howard William Meeker: -as they today are trying to get themselves home.


George James McIlraith: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has made a remark reflecting on the integrity of all hon. members of this house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: -prior to the 1945 general election, and who have been twice re-elected and sent back by their constituents. I suggest,
. and I ask for your ruling on it, that that reflection and his remarks about those hon. members be withdrawn.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why are you so sensitive about criticism?


George James McIlraith: The electors of this country passed judgment on those people and their fitness to sit here twice since that time. That does not apply to all hon. members but only to those who were here prior to the 1945 general election.


George Alexander Drew: What the hon. member has said is an expression of opinion. What he said was that he wished the members who were here at that time had indicated the same effort and the same desire to get the young men in uniform home for Christmas as is now being indicated on this occasion to get themselves home. That, after all, is an expression of opinion. I would, however, suggest that it was prompted by an interruption by an hon. member on the other

side of the house who interjected: Where have you been? I would recall that the young member who has just spoken was for some years overseas serving his country.


An hon. Member:: He was not the only one.


George Alexander Drew: No, he was not by any manner of means the only one, and he would be the last to suggest it; and he would be the last to suggest that there were not many hon. members on the government side who served their country in as gallant and as complete a way as was possible. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who has just raised the objection is showing an extremely sensitive attitude on this subject at a time when he apparently did not feel nearly so sensitive about the earlier interjection which had been made. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the expression of opinion is not one which should call for any ruling by you at this time.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am the member who raised that point. I want to tell the house that the young member who is here had ample time to discuss this price maintenance issue had he been here during this session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has been here during this debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are cutting him off and preventing him from speaking if he wants to.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) has raised the point of order. I am sure the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Meeker) did not intend to reflect on any hon. members in this house.


Howard William Meeker: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, I will allow the debate to continue.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: More filibuster.


George Harris Hees: -I should like to note that the hon. member who made the original motion today was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for whom I have the highest regard.
Som hon. Members: Question.


An hon. Member:: Shush.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Business of the House


Mr. Cleaver:: If the hon. member does not want the floor, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have it.


George Harris Hees: I should like to have just a little bit of order, coupled with the floor.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: What is your argument?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in the past the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has com-mendably made pleas on behalf of the House of Commons staff when it was proposed that we should discontinue the pause for lunch hour and dinner hour and should work continuously right through. He seems now, however, to have forgotten about the inconvenience that these members of the staff would be put to. Instead of just waiving the luncheon interval and the dinner interval, he now wants them to work perhaps, if necessary, right through the night. To me, that course seems rather extraordinary in view of his former protests on behalf of the convenience of the staff. If we work in an orderly fashion from now until Friday night, as this party is quite willing and anxious to do, in order to get through the exceedingly important business which is before this house, the staff will work normal days. Then we will all go home for Christmas. The staff do not have to travel. They live here in Ottawa. If necessary, we will come back the following Thursday, work two days and have our week end and return again. I do not see that that is going to cause any great inconvenience to the staff of the House of Commons.


Donald Ferguson Brown: We will be adjourned then.


George Harris Hees: I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and his party, who sponsored this motion, are far more concerned with their own convenience than any imagined inconvenience of the staff. To put this motion up as a pretext for being worried about the inconvenience of the staff of the House of Commons leaves something to be desired, so far as I am concerned. It is unthinkable that the vitally important matters which still remain to be considered by this house should be considered under conditions of exhaustion, which the passing of this motion would ensure. We are all human beings. We are tired at the end of a reasonably strenuous session. If we go through today without a luncheon interval and without a dinner interval, and work the night, hon. members know that they will not, because of physical limitations, be able to give this vitally important legislation now before us for consideration anything like the attention that it deserves. If we vote for this motion it will

Business of the House
make this House of Commons a sham and a farce. It will be doing a tremendous disservice to the people who elected us to come here to protect their interests and to pass legislation, not ill-considered and hasty, but properly considered and well thought out.
At the present time we have before us three important bills. One is the annuities bill, which is of tremendous importance to all of those who sell and buy life insurance or annuities in this country. We have the Public Works Act. That is a bill which is also of vital importance to the conduct of business throughout this country; the handling of contracts, to the extent of billions of dollars, by this government, and which they propose, as they did last Friday, to do on a non-tender basis. The third is of course the bill dealing with resale price maintenance, which is of vital importance to a tremendous number of merchants throughout this country.
What this motion proposes to do is simply to throw them all in together and hope that everybody gets so exhausted that they cannot think; that we simply get too tired to think and everything goes through, and that is the kind of legislation this country would get. To propose to do that sort of thing in this house is nothing short of a national disgrace, and I would be very much ashamed to be a member of this House of Commons if I agreed to that kind of procedure. That is not the kind of thing that I was sent here to do by the electors of Broadview riding, and I do not intend to conduct their affairs in that way.


Some hon. Members:: What about the
filibuster?


George Harris Hees: We have, through the mismanagement of this government, had far too-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should direct his remarks to the motion before the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was explaining that the reason we are confronted with this position today is the fact that on several days during this session the house was not provided with sufficient work to go on with, and had to adjourn. Because of that mismanagement on the government's part, it is suggested that we jam all this legislation together, ill consider it and, as the government hopes, pass it through as they want it. To me that is not the kind of thing parliament is elected to do, and I sincerely hope that we will not pass this motion, which I think is designed only to cater to the convenience of hon. members.
As the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Meeker) said, there are a great many men at the present time fighting for this country who are only too willing to carry

on their business over the Christmas season. They would like to be home, but they feel they have a responsibility toward their country. We have an equally great responsibility toward the country, to make sure that the legislation that this parliament passes is considered legislation, the kind of legislation which will be best for all the people of this country. I say the least we can do, especially in view of what those soldiers are doing in Korea today, is that, if necessary, we come back here after the Christmas recess and continue, in an orderly fashion, the business of this house, and that between now and Friday we continue in an orderly fashion during the hours that we originally set for this house- and, Mr. Speaker, they were set by hon. members and they were set for a specific reason. You cannot work longer than about two and a half to three hours without needing a rest. You must have that kind of rest. The legislation that is before us is of a vital nature and merits that kind of consideration. To give it any less is simply unthinkable. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I hope that every hon. member will have the good sense and the good taste to vote against a motion of this kind, and that we agree to sit here in an orderly fashion to conduct the matters before the house as they were intended to be conducted, and give all these matters careful consideration so that the legislation that we produce at the end of this session-whenever it may be-may be such that we as members of this parliament may feel proud of it.


Hughes Cleaver: I am simply entering this debate to make a short five-minute plea for a return to sanity on the part of hon. members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the part of the government, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties.


Hughes Cleaver: When feelings run high and
men lose their tempers they often say and do things which they regret afterwards. Mr. Speaker, as one of the older members of the house-I hope the house will bear with me; I do not intend to say anything to offend anyone-may I say that under our rules every minority group has an ample opportunity fully to present all of their views and all of their arguments. But when the time has arrived that they have had that opportunity, and they have presented all their views, then our rules also provide that the will of the majority must prevail. After all, it would be a very strange thing if a small minority group would have the right and the power to push the majority around and do as they wish. Anyone who listened ad nauseam to the speeches that we had yesterday, Mr. Speaker, could not help

but admit that the speakers were running short of any arguments of any consequence to support their views. That was especially true when we listened to the interesting discussion of the battle of Bannockburn and that sort of thing. That was an indication that they had run out of arguments. The opposition have exhausted every possible argument that they could have against this measure-not the motion before us.
Now, let us see what the motion before us does. If there is still any member of the opposition burning with the desire to present further arguments to support his views against Bill No. 36, the motion before the house-we are now discussing the amendment to the motion-gives those members an extra sixteen hours in which to present their views. We could have twenty more 40-minute speeches in the extra time which this motion will give to hon. members. The house has been frankly told that we are facing closure on the 27th. Here is a motion which will give members of the Opposition, if they have any honest desire to present any particular-


George Alexander Drew: No, no.


Hughes Cleaver: -which will give them an extra sixteen hours.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon.
member should refer to a debate that has taken place.


Hughes Cleaver: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Arza Clair Casselman: Withdraw!


George Alexander Drew: Withdraw!


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker; the hon.
member has no right to question the honesty of purpose of members of the House of Commons in debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Hughes Cleaver: I simply said that if there is any-


George Alexander Drew: I ask for a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not understand the hon. member to question the honesty of anyone.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He used the word "honesty".


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think his words could be taken to apply to the extent suggested. There has been other strong language used, also. However, I would rule that if the hon. member has used improper language, he must necessarily withdraw it.
94699-144J
Business of the House


Hughes Cleaver: If I have said anything that offends any member of the opposition-and I mean this-then I at once withdraw it. I did not get up with the intention of being offensive.


George Alexander Drew: Hear, hear.


Hughes Cleaver: I did not get up with the intention of offending anyone's feelings. But I did want to demonstrate, if I can, the very absurd position the opposition are taking. If any of them has a burning desire to express any further additional argument against Bill No. 36, then the motion moved this morning gives them an extra sixteen hours in which to do so. And I do urge members today to do nothing they will regret the day after tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I, for one, have no doubt that the sitting of this house this day will prove to be an historic sitting. There are questions raised by the motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and by the attitude which has been displayed in reference to -that motion, which raise issues of fundamental importance to the future of parliamentary institutions, and our system of responsible government.
Let no member mistake the importance of what is involved here today. What is the background of this situation with which we are now confronted? The circumstances are simply these, that we have reached Thursday of the week prior to Christmas, and it is only natural that members of the house should wish to be home with their families. That is a wish which I am sure is shared by all members of the house, and it is a perfectly proper and natural feeling. And I am sure it is the desire of their families; we are conscious of that.
In the face of that situation, and in the face of -the fact that there are on the order paper some half-dozen measures of very high importance, what did we see within the past several days developing, by way of urge and intent on the part of the government, with full knowledge of this natural feeling and wish on the part of members? Was there-what one would have expected on the part of a government with some sense of responsibility for the discharge of business of the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the hon. member wishes to comply with the rules, but I must remind him that the debate at the present time is on an amendment regarding the hours of sitting. I hope he will relate his remarks directly to the motion before the house.

Business oj the House


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. What we are confronted with is a proposal to extend these hours throughout the entire day, without any interruption, and throughout the entire night.


Mr. Gardiner:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I say-


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not a responsible way for members of the house to discharge their duties.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member now speaking has already spoken on what he says is now before the house, namely the main motion.


An hon. Member:: This is the amendment.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only matter before the house is whether we should add fifteen minutes to the time already provided under the rules. That is all he can talk about. He has already spoken on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the strict interpretation of the rules, I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is right. The debate at the moment is not on the original motion, but on the amendment. The remarks of the hon. member should be related directly to the amendment. Perhaps I have not been enforcing the rule as strictly as I should have; but that is the question now before the house. I will read the question. It says:
That the hours of sitting this day be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
That is the question before the house, and which hon. members should debate at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite so. And what I am seeking to do is to indicate that if that amendment is carried, it holds forth a hope of conducting the business of the house in an orderly and proper fashion-which is not going to be done if the amendment does not carry. That is the whole purpose of my remarks at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: If the amendment does not carry, there is no assurance that the motion will carry. There is just one question before the house at the present time, and that is the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have a greater feeling of apprehension about the fate of the main motion-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: You have spoken on it. You have already spoken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -than you have. And 1 say I am quite within my rights-and I say this

with great respect, as I am sure Your Honour realizes-in saying that in the issues with which we are confronted now in this debate, looking at the realities of the situation, that if parliament is going to carry on its business in an orderly and fair way-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and if the fundamental privileges of parliament are going to be preserved, this amendment should be adopted. And if that amendment is not adopted, then I say to you, sir,-


Donald Ferguson Brown: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Donald Ferguson Brown: One of his political friends has attempted a form of intimidation upon me.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the question?


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am coming to it.


Arza Clair Casselman: What is the question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has allowed the question.


Donald Ferguson Brown: He has said that I will be watched when I stand up to be counted. Does the hon. member think that when I stand up to be counted-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I fail utterly to grasp this question.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Will you permit us to be counted?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am in favour of this motion, and I would like that opportunity.


George Alexander Drew: One o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the proper time I hope the hon. member will stand up and that he will be counted. I believe if he feels so sincerely in the matter he will not hesitate to express his view, and I hope he will not yield to the kind of intimidation that has been held out under various motions on the order paper, including the one of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -which has been added to this morning by his oral threat of the application of closure on Thursday next.
So I commend the hon. member for his concern over these intimidations which are being applied to the house, not very subtly, by the government. I commend him. And when he refers-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Arza Clair Casselman: One o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: Move the adjournment.


An hon. Member:: Look at their faces now. At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there are two very obvious reasons why we regret the introduction of the motion of the hon. member for Lake Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Lake Centre has gone west.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-which has necessitated the introduction of this corrective amendment. The first reason is the one I was dealing with and on which I should like to say something further because I think it strikes at the roots of the freedom of parliament and the rights of minorities in the house. The other reason is a procedural one which may not be so far-reaching for future occasions but which is one that affects us very directly now at this stage of the session when time is very precious. We of the official opposition regret that the motion was introduced and has taken up valuable time that we had hoped to see devoted to the discussion of the important and urgent business on the order paper.
At the end of a session it is not at all unusual for the house to be willing to sit longer hours and to agree to any reasonable extension of time, but that is not what is proposed. The house has been holding three sittings a day, morning, afternoon and night, for the past ten days, and this motion does not come before us as a proposal to add an hour or two to the sittings of the day or the remainder of the session. It comes before us as a proposal to take the house by the scruff of the neck and make the house sit continuously all night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should address his remarks to the amendment. It is customary in the debates on the throne speech and the budget to give members great leeway, and I do not require them to address their remarks to either the motion or amendments. There is wide latitude allowed, but in other debates that is not customary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, I was speaking about the willingness of the house to agree to any reasonable extension of the hours of sitting. The amendment proposes a short extension, and that is not necessarily the last word that we of the official opposition are prepared to say on the subject. We are prepared to be
Business of the House
reasonable on the subject of hours of sitting, and we have never said anything at variance with that co-operative point of view. I want to make that abundantly clear, and in this I am authorized to speak for the leader of the opposition and the members of the official opposition. We would be quite prepared to be reasonable in this matter, as we always have been. If the house wants to lengthen the evening sitting tonight for an hour or even two hours we are not prepared to cavil about that. We are prepared to cooperate with the other parties in the house in expediting the business of the house, but we do not believe we are doing our duty by the business of the house nor by the fundamental principles of parliamentary responsibility if we simply allow the business of the house and the rights of minorities to be overridden, as will be the case unless the amendment is carried or a more reasonable frame of mind prevails than has been indicated either on the part of those who have spoken in support of the motion or those who have indicated their views in noisier fashion. I think that is showing a fair, reasonable and co-operative attitude on the part of the official opposition. I hope that that reasonable attitude will be emulated by other parties in the house. We have just as much desire as any party to see the business of the house expedited and, above all things, to see it carried on in an orderly fashion.
I have dealt with the second of the two aspects of the matter under discussion, the immediate procedural question. I turn to the other aspect, which is much more far-reaching in its implications as to what I think will clearly follow from what has been indicated during the course of the session unless the amendment is carried or, as I have said, some reasonable and co-operative attitude is shown by other parties along the lines I have proposed on behalf of the official opposition. We believe that the freedom of parliament is inseparable from, and as a matter of fact in many respects is embodied in, the rights of minorities in the House of Commons. You cannot talk any longer about the freedom of parliament if the rights of minorities are to be abridged. There are no rights more important to minorities in the house than those rights that are guaranteed them by the rules. Take away the rules, manhandle the rules and you will not be able to talk very long about the freedom of parliament because the rights of minorities will not last very long if the rules are tampered with.
In preserving the freedom of parliament and the rights of minorities in the house nothing is more important than that the rules

Business of the House
in regard to hours of sitting should be observed. Parliament normally treats these rules with great respect, and when it comes to a matter of extending the evening sittings, as we often do at the end of a session, care is taken to initiate these matters by discussion so that we may approach such questions in a reasonable manner with a view to achieving unanimity among the parties in the house. That has not been done on this occasion. If it had been there would have been no occasion for this long discussion today with respect to the motion and the necessary amendment which has had to be introduced to meet it. I recall the remarks in the discussion on the amendment made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). He said something, which was echoed in the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in discussing the amendment, that I think raises very far-reaching questions, questions whose implications I do not think were fully appreciated by those who made the remarks. The hon. member for Halton said that as the result of the debate which has been proceeding for the last couple of days members were running out of arguments. That may be his opinion, but what right has he to force his opinion on the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I am allowing the hon. member to reply briefly, but I would point out that I stopped the hon. member for Halton when he attempted to speak along those lines.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not going to go into the debate that has been proceeding; I simply wished to draw attention to one sentence in which he made a general observa-* tion about the position at which we had arrived.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall permit it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Mr. Mackenzie King:: That would be the understanding.


Major James William Coldwell: But if we are not going to get
through tonight I see no object in sitting any longer. If there are just a few more questions that have to be asked and we can finish in half an hour or so I would be quite agreeable, but if we cannot get that understanding I am going to say no to the suggestion.
What a difference from his attitude today! That is not an isolated instance. As hon. members know, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has at times objected strenuously to sitting past the normal hour of adjournment. He has said on such occasions that that was not the way to conduct the business of the house. Within reasonable limits, that is a sound principle. Reasonable limits would allow for what most hon. members would agree was some extension of the night sittings.
I have indicated that we of the official opposition are quite agreeable to extending the evening sitting of this house tonight for an hour or even two hours. But that is the very most. That would carry the sitting through until eleven o'clock or, at the very latest, midnight. We think in offering that suggestion that we are acting in a constructive and co-operative spirit. We hope that that spirit will be shared by all parties in the house.
But we do not propose to submit to any bludgeoning. We do not propose to have the rights of minorities in this house overridden. We are acting reasonably as a minority; we are acting co-operatively, and we make that suggestion in the hope that it will evoke corresponding co-operation from all parts of the house. But we are not going to be bludgeoned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this. It is manifest that the words used by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in characterizing what is now before us are correct. It is perfectly clear from the words of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who spoke jocularly about thirty-two hours, that what is happening is nothing less than what the hon. member for Eglinton has described.
I should like to refer for a moment to the suggestion which he made. I should like to repeat what he said, that we are accustomed
Business of the House
to extra hours of sitting toward the end of a session. He has indicated that we are prepared to show what we always think we show, a reasonable readiness to co-operate. But it is one thing to sit until twelve o'clock, it is another thing to sit through the night until eleven o'clock the following morning. The one is reasonable in an emergency, the other is unreasonable and is manifestly nothing less than an attempt to destroy the rights of the minority. It would clearly make it impossible for that minority to function reasonably.
I have always been deeply impressed with the wisdom of our ancestors in protecting the rights of minorities as they have. I have often had occasion when I talk to people about parliament, when I talk to ordinary citizens whom I might be trying to interest in parliament, to say, "Why do we, after an election, after the pieces of paper have been put in the ballot boxes, accept the verdict and obey the people who have elected the majority?" Often the result is most unsatisfactory. I have been very dissatisfied with the results for years. Why do we obey? I suggest that one of the basic reasons is, first of all, that we are sporting people, or would like to think we are. We have been in a fight, we feel, and have been defeated, but next time we may win. Second, and more important we know that the rights of minorities will be protected and we will be able to express our views and try to win public opinion to accepting those views.
The rights of parliament undoubtedly are devised to that end. But here we have a situation where in effect what is being done is to make that virtually impossible. I should like to draw attention to one or two authoritative statements on the rights of minorities. As I say, I think that is absolutely basic to our whole system. The greatest surprise, to me, as it was to the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), was the source from which this resolution has come.
As to the comments of the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I can remember so well the occasions upon which he has questioned these additional hours. He has said it makes it so difficult for the members of the opposition to discharge their duty, because no time is given to prepare. I can remember his being so eloquent on that subject.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house one of the most authoritative statements on this subject, because I do state with great earnestness that what the member for Eglinton has said is not a form of words; it is not rhetoric, but is a balanced statement. What is being done today is not merely the extension of time by a few minutes or two or three hours. What is being done today,

Business of the House
basically, is to say to the opposition, you shall not be allowed to perform the duties with which, by long tradition of this house, you have been charged.
I want to read, as I say, very briefly, from Jennings' work on parliament. It refers, Mr. Speaker, to what we all recognize, that this system which we have inherited and made our own would never work without a certain amount of what may be described as team play, a certain amount of the sense of fair play and co-operation between the government and opposition. We see it continually. It is continually in existence in this house, and I am only sorry that today, not on the motion of the government but on the motion of those we usually expect to take a very different view, it is called into question. One of the things we remember is that it is only by good sense and good judgment that minorities can discharge their duties. We have the right of closure in this house, but it has not been used for many years. It is a proper right. If and when it is used, the government takes the responsibility for using it, and no one could cavil at that.
As I say, I want to read briefly from this book. On page 506 it says:
Legal devices are not and cannot be enough.
On the next page it says:
The whole constitutional machine, is, however, impregnated with the principles of democratic parliamentary government. At the peak stands His Majesty's opposition-
I think that what the writer means by that is merely that His Majesty's opposition is representative of minority rights and the protection of minorities, I take it, is the great crowning glory of our system of government.
At the peak stands His Majesty's opposition, ready and able to pounce upon injustice and oppression even more readily than upon defects of policy. In that it does not stand alone, for the government not only does not dare but does not want to act oppressively.
There is a statement as to what parliament has as its basis. We can say quite frankly that in general that is true. We can also say very frankly that when we think it is forgotten it is our duty, as well as our privilege, to object.
Then later on the same page the writer says:
There is nothing whatever in the constitutional machinery that prevents an opposition from being suppressed.
In other words, a majority is a majority. There is closure in the house, and they can suppress. We know that is not the practice. Ordinarily the practice is that these ample powers given to us under the rules are respected.
IMr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
I continue my quotation:
Nor is there anything effective to prevent the power of the opposition from being completely destroyed by the destruction of free elections.
That statement is no doubt true, but we never think about that possibility.
The opposition cannot outvote the majority. It can only carry out Canning's threat to defy it and appeal to the people.
Then again the writer says:
The checks and balances are mutually interdependent. One alone cannot be overthrown, and so long as they remain, it is the function of the opposition not only to see that they operate but also to prevent gradual and insidious encroachments.
I suggest to any fair-minded man in this house that what is employed in the motion made here is a gradual-it is not so gradual, either-and insidious encroachment.
Again I quote from Jennings' book:
For, in truth, the whole system is a free system, impregnated with ideas which are the product of centuries of constitutional development, and dependent in the last analysis on the will of the people to be free.
I should like to add a word or two and to ask why, after many occasions-let us state very frankly many occasions when the government has been fully playing the game with this constitutional principle upon which we base our way of life-is this time being selected as the time when the opposition is accused of being unreasonable? It has already been pointed out in answer to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), and judging by a simple test of arithmetic, that we have not taken a fraction of the time, in proportion to the representation in the house, as was taken by the Social Credit group in a courageous manner years ago. What is there that has happened that this matter needs to be dealt with in this way? Why can we not proceed in an orderly manner? Is this measure so vital, so important, so urgent that it is a matter of life and death? Nobody states that.
I am not going to go over the ground which has been adequately covered, but I do want to point out what was said in this house last night by the member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne). He challenged the members of the government, challenged the whole house in fact, by asking whether we could stand cross examination or any kind of examination of the evidence which was given before the combines committee. The criticisms which have been made of the committee I share. I was reading the proceedings again last night, and I was astonished at many of the things I found.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I just wish to say again that the motion made this morning seems to me to be, in spite of its innocent appearance of merely referring to the times of meeting and times of adjourning, in contradiction to the very basic rights that we have. It is for that reason I shall have to vote for the amendment.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg North Centre):: We have had two propositions put before us. There is a motion by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the house shall sit continuously, and an amendment on the part of the official opposition that instead of sitting continuously the time might be extended for this day. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has indicated that so far as the official opposition is concerned any reasonable extension of the hours of sitting for this day would be considered. But to suggest that the house must sit without intermission is astounding. It might be defended in a case of national emergency, but there is no national emergency facing us at the present time. It might be defended on some other grounds, but we have had no adequate reason presented to us for indefinitely prolonging the hours of sitting.
We have had suggestions put forward that in the interests of the staff of this institution the matter should be brought to a conclusion. Yet at the same time the "suggestion is made to indefinitely extend the hours of sitting which would impose a serious extra burden upon the staff. That does not make sense. Several times in the course of the last few days it has been suggested to us that the Christmas season is approaching and the business of the house should be wound up quickly. It would be pleasant and interesting to have a normal Christmas; but obviously those who live at a distance from this city will be seriously inconvenienced this year. We have had held in the background over our heads the suggestion that we may have to reassemble immediately after Christmas, an event which means that people living at a distance from Ottawa will have to leave their homes on Christmas day or before Christmas day. I confess to surprise that there should be such a complete disregard of the interests of the people west and east of this city. As a matter of fact, I am prepared to leave on Christmas evening and come back here, if that is the determination of this house, or I am prepared to miss Christmas entirely. It will not be the first time in my life that I have not had Christmas at home. But I think such a course of action should be founded upon some greater reason than we have had presented to us here.
Business of the House
Why the haste? Why try to rush through the business of this house in a short interval? Why has there not been a more orderly arrangement of the business of the house? These are thoughts that go through a person's mind when he considers the possibilities that are ahead of us. As a representative of the people and as a student of the parliamentary system for a period of years, I think that this is a rather unfortunate example of the disregard of the prestige of parliament and of the rights of minorities within parliament. In the history of a parliamentary institution there may be occasions when extreme measures must be taken to force legislation through. There have been examples in the past when apparently merely obstructionist methods have been followed and it has been essential for the government to impose closure in order to force its measure through the house. But on this particular occasion we are not faced with that situation. We have been having a reasonable debate on the various issues presented to us. We have still facing us a heavy order paper containing matters which require careful and serious consideration. We should be given an opportunity to debate those matters carefully and with the attention they deserve. The thing that I find regrettable is the fact that some of the most important and most contentious measures facing the house this session should be brought to our attention at so late a stage, and should then be put before us with the suggestion: If you want to be home for Christmas, let us pass this legislation; be a rubber stamp; let it go through; fold up and go home.
I am happy to see that the opposition is properly standing its ground on this occasion and is asserting the rights of free men in a free society, namely that their voice may be heard and that the opinions of the people they represent may be presented here on the floor of the House of Commons.
If this amendment which has been put forward by the official opposition is not carried and if the motion which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has presented to us is carried by the house, we will then apparently be in continuous session. I was interested in an opinion that was expressed by Your Honour this morning, to the effect that if this particular sitting ran over into tomorrow you would, prior to eleven o'clock in the morning, adjourn the house and that it would then reassemble for the next sitting at eleven. I should be pleased to be informed as to how that can be done. I have not sufficient experience on some of these matters, but I have been looking into the rules of the house and consulting the rules of the British House of Commons. I

Business of the House
find that, according to our rules, the Speaker of the house here is entitled to adjourn the house at six o'clock on a Wednesday and at eleven o'clock on other days, without question put. But if the sitting day runs beyond eleven o'clock, would it not be essential, prior to bringing that sitting to a close sometime tomorrow, that a motion be made for adjournment of the house? Would such a motion not be required?
According to the British practice, as given in the latest edition of Erskine May, 1950, at page 308, I notice that if a sitting on any day should be prolonged beyond the hour of meeting on the following day-that is, if the sitting of this house should go on beyond eleven o'clock tomorrow morning-no independent sitting can take place on that day, and the house rises when it has disposed of the business of the sitting prolonged from the previous day. Erskine May gives some examples. He says that the house was prevented from meeting on Wednesday, July 20, 1904; and he gives subsequent examples, the latest being July 23, 1937.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether a similar situation would arise here in this house, but I should be pleased to be informed on the subject. If it should be that the practice of this house would follow that British practice, and if we should be in continuous session throughout today, this evening, during the night and tomorrow morning, it seems to me that we would go on indefinitely unless someone moved the adjournment of the house, which might then prevent the proper sitting of the house on Friday. That is a matter on which you, sir, might be able to enlighten hon. members of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just for the purpose of giving a bit of information, I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the fact that in this house in 1896, when the house was debating the Manitoba school issue, the sitting which began at three o'clock one Monday afternoon did not conclude until two a.m. the following Friday, according to the record. Yes, it went from three o'clock Monday until two a.m. the following Friday, and according to the records-both the Journals and Hansard-it was counted as one day's sitting. The point I am trying to convey to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is that if the continuation of one day's sitting interfered with a formal new sitting of the house on those subsequent calendar days, the
TMr. Churchill.]
right to discuss the matter at hand was not interfered with at all. The house continued to sit night and day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am grateful to my hon.
friend and neighbour for enlightening me on this matter. That is just what I fear, namely that we may be in continuous session from now until we reach the conclusion of the matters on the order paper. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for whom I have the greatest admiration, and who is recognized in our part of the country as an experienced authority on parliamentary procedure, has, I confess, disappointed me on this occasion, because I have always looked upon him as a stout defender of the rights of minority groups and of the opposition in this house. I was hoping that in another issue which may confront us shortly I would find some of his stalwart support behind me in a matter on which I feel very keenly. This is perhaps only one single solitary lapse from grace, and I am not going to condemn him outright on this occasion, because his reputation as a defender of the rights of minorities has been pretty thoroughly established, and I feel sure that once we get over the Christmas season he will be back on the side of right again.
You see what is ahead of us. If my hon. friend's motion should carry and our amendment is not found satisfactory we will sit here continuously until, I .presume, we complete all the matters on the order paper, and that will be a good test of endurance. I do not mind a test of endurance. I think there are other hon. members here who are quite equal to facing up to it. But will our journey be really necessary through the long hours of the night? It seems to me that this incident here in the House of Commons points out very clearly the crisis that is showing up in our parliamentary life. We have been faced here with a tremendous majority on the government benches and a small number on the opposition side. Under these circumstances there is always the danger that the majority will on occasion become rather impatient with the small number facing them, and wish to hurry along with the business. But in the long course of the history of our parliaments there have been occasions when those who have been on. the side of the Speaker have, in course of time, found themselves on the other side, and then they looked to the rules and the procedure and the established forms in the House of Commons to protect their interests. That is the reason why the rules, established over the centuries with regard to parliament, have

gained such respect and have been held in such high esteem by all parties. Each party realized that at some time in the course of its existence it is going to be faced with the necessity of being on the opposition benches. The rules have been devised not only to facilitate progress of important matters through the house and to facilitate the conduct of public business, but to protect the rights of minorities.
Unless they have complete freedom of debate and of speech, without being subjected to tremendous pressure, physical pressure of lack of rest and so on, unless they have complete freedom how can minorities present, as they should be presented, the issues that confront us today?
I join with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in urging that the suggestion he has made that some compromise be arrived at be seriously considered.
The opposition is prepared to extend the hours of sitting, but is naturally opposed to a continuous sitting of the house. I have pointed out the dangers that might result from that. That is the situation and that is why I hope all hon. members will support the amendment which has been put forward. It does make an extension of time and will keep us within the normal practice of this house, and will give people an opportunity to continue debates without being compelled by pressure of time to give inattention to those subjects that are of such great importance to our country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment now before the house, but before doing so, may I say that while I do not wish to lose the right to speak to the amendment, if that should be necessary, nevertheless I do wish to indicate that I am willing to resume my seat immediately I have an indication from those who have so far taken the other side that they are prepared to consider or would like to pursue the idea of the compromise suggestion that has been made. I would like to repeat that suggestion at the moment. It is that rather than each of the opposing sides in this discussion taking irrevocable and irreconcilable positions, with the result that this discussion on procedure would undoubtedly be extensively prolonged to the prejudice of the discussion on the merits of the legislation, which I know we all want to get at, we consider whether it is not possible to reach an agreement on some reasonable extension of the sitting time today. A suggestion has been made that it might be one or even two hours this evening, which would bring it up to midnight tonight. I would imagine that
94699-145i
Business of the House
with good will on both sides and with a genuine desire to discuss the merits of the legislation, rather than prolong the discussion of the procedural question, the merits of the legislation would be considered and that the business of the house would be expedited instead of prolonging the discussion of positions which at the moment are irreconcilable. If there is any indication at all that it is the desire at the moment to pursue that subject I shall be glad to yield my position. If not, I shall continue and speak on the amendment which is now before the house. I see that no one is anxious to take the floor which I have offered to yield.


Arza Clair Casselman: To whom are you referring?


Edmund Davie Fulton: To the mover and seconder of the motion particularly, but if of course it is desired by them to discuss it further with anybody in any other part of the house, a private member or a minister, whether it be the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sin-nott) or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) or other members of their own party, or whoever it may be, all they have to do is to say so and we shall be glad to facilitate that discussion. In the meantime I will carry on speaking to the amendment, but I shall yield my place at any time that I have any indication from anybody in any quarter of the house that there is a disposition to follow up this offer of a reasonable compromise.
In the absence of such indication I do have certain views that I wish to express on the amendment now before the house. Summarized briefly, the purpose of the amendment is to limit the discussion to the hours of sitting, which have been agreed to and laid down as the most effective for conducting in an orderly fashion the business of the house. In that respect, I should like to point out, it has been quite possible in the past to conclude even lengthy discussions, often under pressure, within the ordinary hours which apply at the end of a session.
Our amendment, if adopted, would extend the ordinary hours by fifteen minutes. As I have said, we are prepared to consider a compromise by which they may be extended by two hours. But I point out, particularly to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), that it has been the case in the past that matters upon which his party has been vitally interested, upon which they have carried on concerted and vigorous attack, have been capable of disposition within ordinary sitting hours.
I am somewhat surprised that the memory of the hon. member for Peace River should

Business of the House
have been so defective in this regard as to have allowed him not only to second the motion we have before us but also to make very inaccurate statements with respect to the previous occasion he had in mind. Because when the hon. member for Annapo-lis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) was speaking, upon the occasion of his moving the amendment this morning, he referred to the previous filibuster carried on by the hon. member and his party in 1945. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings pointed out that thirteen members prolonged the debate on the Bretton Woods agreeement for six days.


Solon Earl Low: That is not true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The debate on the Bretton
Woods agreement occupied six days, and it was the party of the hon. member for Peace River who occupied the greater part of that time. If they had not wished to prolong the debate I imagine-and I was here on the occasion- it would not have lasted for more than two days.


Solon Earl Low: Your memory is very short.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have consulted Hansard in this regard.


Solon Earl Low: So have I.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just before saying what I have found, I wish to point out that this morning the hon. member for Peace River interrupted the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings by stating that the house was then sitting only from three o'clock in the afternoon until eleven at night. But that is not the case. During every one of those days, when that prolongation of debate was taking place, we were sitting from eleven o'clock in the morning until eleven at night. The debate took place on these days: December 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 14, 1945.


Solon Earl Low: Only part of each day.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the hon. member for Peace River feels that it was appropriate for only thirteen members to prolong the debate for six days-


Mr. Lesage:: On a point of order, I am wondering to what extent the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is in order when he revives the debate of 1945, when we are discussing an amendment the effect of which would be to prolong the hours of sitting for today only for fifteen minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: This point has been mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River. I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops to reply as briefly as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I am trying to make is related definitely to the amendment we have moved. My point is that in 1945, when this prolongation of debate took place, we were able to dispose of it within the normal hours of sitting at the end of a session. Our amendment moved by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings would restrict the hours of sitting to those normally applicable at the end of this session, with the exception of fifteen minutes.
What I am pointing out is that, on the basis of the best precedent, it is perfectly possible to conclude this debate within the normal hours of sitting. That is why I am defending this proposal in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings.
As I say to the hon. member for Peace River, in all fairness and with all pleasantness-and I have no desire to be unpleasant- I do not ask him to bear in mind that if his party of thirteen felt it appropriate to prolong the debate over six days in 1945-and I am not suggesting that they took every hour or every minute of that time-then I cannot quite see that he is being consistent and fair when he criticizes us because forty-six members of this party wish to have an opportunity for full debate, and thus far have continued the debate for only two and a half days. Forty-six members, two and a half days: thirteen members, six days.
I appeal to the hon. member's sense of fairness. In that regard I wish also to point out what was emphasized a short time ago by the hon. member for Eglinton, that this debate has not been monopolized by members of the official opposition. Fifteen speakers have taken part in it. Then, other parties have also had fifteen members taking part, divided as follows:	Eleven Liberals, one C.C.F., two
Social Credit and one Independent.
I submit therefore that a comparison of the two situations, those of 1945 and of today, is entirely in our favour. I appeal to the logic of the hon. member for Peace River. In the light of what they did in 1945 I submit that, if he wishes to be fair, he will agree that we have not by any means exceeded the bounds of propriety. We have not in any sense been unfair nor have we abused our rights, or our responsibilities to the house. Only one-half of the members occupying the time in the debate thus far have been from this party, and the debate has lasted only two and one-half days.
I would point out that in 1945 there was no suggestion at any time, particularly from the official opposition, that the debate on the Bretton Woods agreement should be choked off. There may have been exclamations of

impatience, as there always are; but it was confined to that. There was never at any time a suggestion from this side of the house that the debate should be unfairly limited, or that members of the Social Credit party should be placed under the undue, unfair and exhausting pressure the hon. member for Peace River is seeking to apply at this time.
It is said that after all there is no good purpose in our amendment, which seeks to limit the debate to normal sitting hours with, as I have said, the addition of an extra fifteen minutes. It is said that there is no purpose in the amendment, because if we are really interested in discussing this matter fully we should be willing to sit in perpetuity, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said might be the effect of his motion. Because then we can speak to our heart's content.
Well, that was slightly amusing when it was first said. But it has ceased to be amusing now, because the repetition of the statement has demonstrated perhaps more clearly than anything else that its sole purpose is, in effect, to shorten the session.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of the amendment this afternoon-


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, very well.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member for Kamloops has already spoken to the main motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not believe he should be entitled to discuss the effect of the main motion. He should stick to the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will, if you give me a chance.


Jean Lesage: The hon. member was talking about the effect of the acceptance of the main motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have been discussing the effect of the amendment, explaining that its purpose is to limit the debate to the confines of normal sitting hours at the end of a session.


Mr. Speaker:: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Lesage), it is correct, as I pointed out earlier, that the discussion should be directed to the amendment, and not to the main motion. I have not held hon. members too strictly to that ruling; but the debate has now been going on for some time, and I think probably we had better get back to the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree with Your Honour entirely; the debate should be confined to the
Business of the House
amendment before the house. I am sorry we are not in agreement as to the method by which it can be confined. I thought I was directing my remarks to the amendment-at least, that was my intention. If I have been transgressing, then I shall try to follow the ruling. But I do wish to say that the purpose of my remarks at this stage is to demonstrate that if our amendment is carried it will not necessarily have the effect of prolonging the sitting days of this session. Because other debates, on subjects just as hotly contested, debates to which the term "filibuster" has been applied, have been carried on and concluded at the end of the session, under pressure of the desire to get home. This happened late in December of 1945, with normal sitting hours.
Our amendment seeks to confine the discussion on this hotly contested subject to very nearly normal sitting hours, only fifteen minutes longer than normal, instead of the motion under which it is proposed to allow it to proceed all night, all the next day, all the next night and so on ad infinitum until by sheer exhaustion all subjects on the order paper are disposed of.
What I am trying to do is to set out the purpose of the amendment and to show the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet amongst others that it will not necessarily prolong the session but that in fact it will probably have the effect of shortening it if our amendment is accepted instead of the improper motion that has been placed before the house. On the question of how best we are going to shorten the session, I am as anxious as any other member for reasons which will be obvious, namely, that my home is in British Columbia and it is very questionable whether I am going to be able to get home in time for Christmas even now, that it may be possible for members to get home for Christmas. I think the debate can be concluded and members allowed to leave here just as quickly if the amendment proposed is accepted as will be the case if the motion carries.
I point out in that regard, however, that with respect to the question of the length of the session I find it a little unseemly that there should be this desire to shorten it. After all, when we came here in October we were given to understand, and the people of Canada were given to understand, that we were coming for a full normal session. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members opposite that by no stretch of the imagination can we be said as yet to have had a full normal session of parliament. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the responsibility we owe to the people of Canada who have sent us here expecting us to

Business of the House
discharge our duty, I find it amazing and highly irresponsible on the part of members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties and the government, who support them in this move, to seek to cut short the work of parliament before a proper normal session has been allowed to come to its usual ending. We of this party wish to make it clear once and for all that we believe the work of parliament must be carried out and completed in an orderly fashion and that legislation of public importance should be attended to by members of the house even if it is necessary for them to curtail their own holidays in order to do so. That is the purpose of the amendment which has been moved and which I support.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). That is the reason why I have not voted.
(Text):


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is tfye hon. member announcing a pair? *


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, unless hon. members are announcing pairs I propose to speak on the motion now before the house.


Mr. James Sinclair (Coasf-Capilano):: I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage):
That the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) be now heard.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I was quite willing to extend the courtesy to hon. members who wished to announce pairs, but I claim the privilege to speak on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a motion by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, seconded by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, that the hon. member for York South be now heard.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I have the right to be heard. There was some confusion in the house due to some hon. members announcing their pairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I refer hon. members to standing order 35, which reads:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard," or "do now speak" which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.


Joseph William Noseworthy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) to withdraw the motion.


James Sinclair: I shall be happy to withdraw. The only reason I made it was that the hon. member was obviously on his feet, and you were not looking in his direction.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been withdrawn, and I call upon the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough).


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I thank the member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) for withdrawing his motion, and also the member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) for requesting that the motion be withdrawn.
I realize that in the confusion of the voting and the subsequent announcing of pairs there was some doubt who had first claimed the attention of the Speaker. I do thank these gentlemen most sincerely for giving me this opportunity.
I should like to speak now to the motion which is before the house concerning the extension of hours. Much has been said already this day concerning the consideration of matters which are now before this house. Inasmuch as several piembers have already announced personal reasons for voting for or against this particular motion, I think I might also state the position in which I find myself as an individual member of this house.
I happen to be one of those who, during the past month, have been sitting continuously on committees, on two committees at one time. On more than one occasion this has been the cause of some embarrassment to me because I felt that my place was in both committees. Both of these committees were considering matters which were of great interest to me, and upon which I wished to make representations. We were sitting from 9.30 in the morning, adjourning at 10.30 to go to the second committee, and sitting there until one o'clock. Then we would come into the house at two or 2.30, as the case might be, leaving the house again at three or 3.30 to return to the committee. We would sit there until six o'clock or later, and then often be called upon for some duties after that. We were still expected by our constituents to answer their letters, to look after matters which they had asked us to look after for them.
Personally I am quite willing to work all night. It would not be the first time I have done it. I have been doing it all my life, and I have managed to live through it. But there is a limit to the hours during which
Business of the House
you can transact business in the departments of this government; there is a limit to the hours during which you can receive secretarial assistance. It is a physical impossibility to sit in committees for those hours, and still attend to the work which a member is required to do outside this house. So far as I am concerned personally, if this house decides to sit all night I shall be here. It will be very interesting to see just how many members of this house will be here. There are certain considerations, of course.
I wonder what plans are going to be made for restaurant services, because you cannot sit all night long without food.
I have sat in committee meetings until the small hours of the morning, both in organization work and in municipal councils.
I have full knowledge of the type of thinking that is done in the small hours of the morning. Tempers are frayed and judgment is poor. Here, in the highest tribunal in this country, we are asked to pass upon some of the most important legislation that has come before this house for some time, and to do so at a time of the day or night when human vitality is at its lowest ebb. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely contrary to the best judgment of the members of this house. I do not think any man or woman in this country would want his personal affairs decided by a group of people who had been considering a matter for twenty-four hours. I would not want anyone making any decision on any matter affecting my personal affairs after they had been considering them for twenty hours. I would doubt very much the wisdom and judgment of the wisest man in the land after the expiration of that period of time. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if this house persists in sitting all night long tonight, they are sabotaging the people of this nation who depend upon them to use wise and considered judgment in the matters which are before this house.
I cannot feel that the members of this house are really serious in pursuing this course. I know that within the last few hours we have debated at some length, and at times with some heat, on this question. But I would ask the members to reconsider, and in order to give them an opportunity for reconsideration I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "That" to the end of the question and substituting the following:
"for this day's sitting the house shall after the dinner recess sit from 8 p.m. to 12 p.m.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the motion that has just been put offers to the house an

Business of the House
opportunity to express itself in regard to the proposal that was made, that the time of sitting be extended tonight until midnight, and that this added opportunity be given for the consideration of the measures that are before us. Having regard to the fact that we have already been sitting much longer hours than usual, and that most of the members of this house have been sitting on committees as well during these longer hours of the house, I submit that what the hon. member has said in support of this motion is amply demonstrated by the fact that so many of the members already have shown their inability to continue to sit the present hours, without extending them into an all-night session.
I believe the proposal which has been made is reasonable in every way. I think twelve o'clock midnight is the very latest the members of this house should be asked to sit t.o consider extremely important business affecting not merely thousands or hundreds of thousands but millions of Canadians in their daily lives.
When the vote was taken on the amendment it was perfectly clear that no matter to what extent the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might indicate that, as head of the government, he was not asking his followers to follow a particular course, there was no doubt about what course was being followed by the members; and that course was consistent with the warning he gave as to what would be done unless the house carried through with this resolution.
I do not intend to enlarge upon the remarks which might justifiably be made and which will be made in regard to what this really means unless the government is prepared to accept a reasonable offer to extend the sitting hours tonight. I can only repeat to the leader of the house, who is in his place, that there is before us legislation of the utmost importance. Let me refer to simply one measure which calls for extensive discussion. I refer to Bill No. 23, to amend the Government Annuities Act. That is an act of vital importance to scores of thousands of Canadian workers. Right at this time agreements are under negotiation which depend upon certain features of this measure. It should be recalled, however, that this measure contains a section as to cash surrender provisions which has been opposed by the members of the Conservative party in the committee because of the effect these would have, quite apart from the provision of annuities. In fact, the opinion has been expressed that the inclusion of that section actually defeats the basic purpose for which this act was introduced. That alone is a subject which

calls for extensive discussion and consideration. I have mentioned the others that are before us.
I suggest that the leader of the house indicate that he is prepared to support this amendment. If he gives that indication, I know perfectly well there will not be much doubt about the way the members of the party opposite will vote. Still better, I would hope that following the discussion that has taken place, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would seek the concurrence of the house either in support of this amendment or in the withdrawal of the motion itself. I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been one of the most assiduous students of the rules, traditions and procedure of this house, to recognize what really was the effect of the Prime Minister's statement when he referred to this matter this morning. I suggest to him that he consider this motion not alone in the light of the way it originally stood but in the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning. I took down what the Prime Minister said in the discussion of this subject. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to debate this motion, but I do intend when the house is in session tomorrow, if the business has not been concluded, to give notice und&r the closure rule that it will be applied on Thursday, December 27.
I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will recall that there was no break, and that that was one sentence. In other words the Prime Minister is going to take no part in this debate, but he wants to know that if we do not submit and simply let everything go through tomorrow, he is going to introduce closure on Thursday, December 27. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been so greatly concerned about the freedom of the members of this house to express themselves, to recognize the fact that what we are discussing now is not a question of when we close but of whether this parliament is still the supreme authority or whether we are going to have the whip cracked over our heads by the Prime Minister of Canada in this way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the leader of the opposition permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Certainly.


Mr. Warren:: He does not know it is Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the leader of the opposition realizes that, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister this morning, it becomes even more imperative that my motion pass so that members

of the house can get all the time they feel they need to discuss the business before us.
We have been informed by the Prime Minister that this session will come to an end at two o'clock on Friday morning, December 28. That is the effect of his closure announcement. It is up to us as to how many hours between now and then we are to debate the measures before us. If my motion does not carry, or if the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) carries, we limit ourselves to a few hours today, to the hours laid down for tomorrow and to the time on Thursday, December 27, from eleven a.m. to two a.m. the following morning. But my motion would add to that period of time whatever number of hours we want to take between now and 10.59 tomorrow morning.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I greatly regret-


Ralph Melville Warren: Scrooge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon member who has just interrupted might, with more profit to the house and to himself, join in the Christmas carols that were being sung a short time ago outside of this chamber. We are trying to discuss a serious subject, and I regard it as an extremely serious subject indeed. I do regret very much that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should find himself in the position of presenting arguments such as he has made. Whether I agree with his political views or whether I agree with the arguments he sometimes puts forward, I think he has had evidence of the fact that I have respected his efforts to enlighten this house in regard to matters affecting rules of procedure. I regret very much to find him employing such a specious argument as that which he has now used. I would have thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if he was convinced that we were being deprived of our rights, would rise and say: We join you in this fight to preserve the rights of parliament. That I think would be in keeping with the stand he has taken here in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), or any minister of the government, has announced closure under standing order 39, I think it is, is there anything parliament can do about it?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is their responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has announced that,
though I did not know the Prime Minister was going to make that announcement when I made my motion this morning. I submit the fact that he has announced it puts a
Business of the House
different complexion upon my motion. As a matter of fact my motion is a godsend to the Tories if they only realized it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, really we are getting the most convincing evidence as to why this amendment should be adopted. It is perfectly obvious that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is already so tired that he cannot think now let alone later tonight. I say that of an hon. member who ordinarily is so clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be ready to speak at four o'clock tomorrow morning.


George Alexander Drew: When he says this has already been done I would point out that the Prime Minister has not yet put any motion in regard to closure. The Prime Minister has said: Unless you submit, we are going to do it. Let me read his words again. I hope these words will not only be borne in mind by hon. members of this house but that there will be an opportunity for the people of Canada to know exactly what happened here today. I recall this one sentence, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting the Prime Minister now:
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to debate this motion, but I do intend when the house is in session tomorrow, if the business has not been concluded, to give notice under the closure rule that it will be applied on Thursday, December 27.
Oh, there was a time when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would have been the very one to rise and tell the Prime Minister: No matter whether you agree with what we are doing or not, do not ask us to submit to a threat of that kind. Let us rather preserve the rights of parliament and the rights of hon. members to proceed with their debate in the ordinary way.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the leader of the opposition to read the statement that was made with regard to the same matter by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just before the Prime Minister answered him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He dared him to do it.


George Alexander Drew: I am reading the quotation from the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture is only too well aware that, though we might like our advice to be taken, we are not yet in the position where our statements as to what should be done are observed with regularity by the Liberal members in this house-and I am using the capital "L" in this case.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just say to the leader of the opposition that my memory of what happened is that the hon. member for Eglinton challenged the Prime Minister to move

Business of the House
closure and even suggested the opposition could not logically object to his doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dared him.


George Alexander Drew: I assume that the Minister of Agriculture, who is such a careful student of the press, read in the press this morning that the government was contemplating introducing the closure motion. And it certainly would not be surprising if any member had indicated that it would be an amazing thing if such a course should be followed in regard to a matter of this kind.


James Garfield Gardiner: What I really did read in the press this morning, and in the Conservative press, was that the press is now convinced that the opposition are carrying on a filibuster in connection with this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I am very pleased to know that the Minister of Agriculture has improved his reading habits-


James Garfield Gardiner: I always read the Conservative press.


George Alexander Drew: He now accepts as authoritative the statements in some of these papers which he took to task so severely in this house only a few months ago. But may I say-


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not know they were in agreement with the Gazette.


George Alexander Drew: May I say so far as the procedure in this house is con/ceraed, that we are quite prepared to state our own position; and only the statements we make can be accepted as interpreting our position/ in this debate. The discussion that has taken place on this motion is simply am attempt to persuade the government to recognize the rights and duties of members of parliament, I repeat the sugestion I have made, namely that either the mover, with the concurrence of the seconder, seek the consent of the house to withdraw the motion or that the Minister of Agriculture, /as the only minister now in the house, give his indication oni behalf of the Liberal party that they will support the amendment. If he will do that, then we will have disposed of this and we can get on with the business of this house as expeditiously as possible, sitting through until midnight, which is the very latest we should sit. I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will not give that assurance. If he will, then we shall be able to get on with the business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the turn the debate took just a moment ago when the Minister of Agriculture stepped in with a reference to what my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said this

morning. I did not understand the hon. member for Eglinton to say exactly what the Minister of Agriculture suggests. What I understood him to say was that the original motion was in effect something in the nature of closure, but I do not propose to haggle about that, because I do not imagine the Minister of Agriculture is asking us to believe that even if he is right in suggesting that the hon. member for Eglinton issued a challenge, the Prime Minister made up his mind then and there as to closure. I took the statement of the Prime Minister to refer to something which had been decided, and therefore it does not seem to me it is very relevant to attempt-if the Minister of Agriculture was doing that-to throw part of the responsibility on the hon. member for Eglinton. I am not so sure that the minister would object; nevertheless one would like to believe-and until I am forced to take a different view I will believe-that an important decision of this kind, which I think is of tremendous importance, was not made in that offhand manner.
Now that I am on my feet I should like to say a little more about the situation that faces us. I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) is a sensible and co-operative one. It is an amendment which shows that we do wish to go half-way or a good deal more than half-way from our point of view. The fact is that neither the mover and seconder nor the government have made any observation on this offer, but gentlemen opposite have said no with much more alacrity than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I have been looking at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), nearly all of whose utterances in this house I regard with great respect, and I have been allowing myself to believe-although I am not a mind reader-that perhaps if he had all this to do over again, he would not do it. But be that as it may.
At the present time the situation is that we have made a suggestion to extend the time for two hours, and that suggestion apparently is going to be rejected. There is another point I should like to refer to. I was interested when the minister for Winnipeg North Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Member.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry- "member"-said, "You must now accept this situation because of what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, and because of the threat which you now know you face." Apparently the argument is that with this threat before us-and I shall come back to that in a moment-we must just run away in panic, and do what we are told.

It is quite true that the government will have the power, if I understand correctly the procedure of closure, when we come back next Thursday to cut us off, as the hon. member has indicated, at two o'clock next morning. I do not know if that is actually in the rules-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Standing order 39.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then that gives even more significance to the threat of closure; and of course I accept the knowledge of the hon. member on that point. Nevertheless it is hard for me not to believe that the government, with the considerable influence it has in the house, if it wanted to go a little longer than two o'clock next morning, could not do so. As we^have reason to know, the government has very considerable mastery over the house. At any rate I shall not match my views with those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on that point, because it is not necessary to tie myself to any view in the matter.
My feeling is that for us to be driven into panic by the threat which has been made would be in the highest degree foolish. As I said before, it is in my opinion an utterly unwarrantable tampering with the rights of the minority. For many years there has been nothing of that kind. There was a time when this house, I believe, did sit all night, or at any rate until the very small hours of the morning. Of course there were facilities in the house at that time which are not available today. Perhaps the men of those days were giants in more ways than one. But I gather they did not have to rely wholly upon nature unassisted. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) as to the barrenness of the land, in respect of refreshments-if we have to stay here the whole night-are worthy of consideration.
It may be said that, after all, we are merely doing what is done in the British House of Commons. I believe they do sit long hours on occasion; but I submit the situation there is very different. They have something like 650 members, and no doubt they are able to spell each other in a way we are not able to do.
We have tried to behave like sensible men. I wish to point out again that no reason has been given for this haste. We have already spent four hours rather unprofitably, I think. It may be that we would have been on our way home by now, with all the bills passed- no one can prove that is not so-had it not been for this unfortunate step taken by the gentleman sitting to my left. No reason has been given, no effective suggestion has been made, no argument worthy of the name has
Business of the House
been offered for taking this step. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) greatly to my surprise-immensely to my surprise, because usually I regard him as one of the men in the house most devoted to its rights and privileges-has taken an opposite view. When I heard what he said this morning I could scarcely believe my ears. What he said was that everything that should be said in this debate in connection with resale price maintenance had been said. I submit there is only one person who can say that-and He is not in the house. I refer to a higher power than ours. How is anyone in the house, the Prime Minister or anyone else, to say when everything has been said that should be said? That makes a fool of the whole business. We have rules in the house. As I have said, the government has the right of closure. They can come along and say, "We will move closure", and the effects will be as have been stated.
I presume we will not have the Prime Minister undertaking to play the part of the Almighty and say, when the motion for closure is made, that he is making it because everything that needs to be said has been said. I presume he would just make it with the power of his government and his majority behind him. But to me it does show how utterly wrong-headed some of us have become in the matter.
I do not know what has happened to my friends to the left. I have been for some time in the habit of following them, but I certainly will have to be more careful in future about doing so, because today they seem to have been false guides to an extent I would not have believed possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not mean the blind
leading the blind?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was thinking of that but I left it out, because I did not want to insult you or myself. But I come back seriously to say this, that we have had a debate on this important question. So far as I am concerned, I confess I have not been able to my own satisfaction to read the proceedings of the committee, of which I was not a member. But I should be permitted to study those proceedings if I am to come to a satisfactory conclusion on this subject. I must say my reading to date of the proceedings indicates to me that its work was not completed, that we have not the evidence we need.
The speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) confirmed that view; because, to the best of my recollection, nearly all the evidence he gave did not come from the committee proceedings but from other, independent sources. I am not quarrelling

Business of the House
about that; I am only saying that is an indication that we were perfectly within our rights-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member is far from the subject matter, I suggest.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I respect
your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and shall try to remain closely within the confines of the subject matter. I am complaining about the fact that we are being asked to have an all-night session. The hon. member for Hamilton West has pointed out with great clarity some of the things people do at allnight sessions of various kinds. We know that at social all-night sessions things happen of which there is not universal approval. And even at serious all-night sessions, which ours no doubt would be, the hon. member for Hamilton West has indicated just how fallible judgments can be. Indeed if judgments can be so fallible at four o'clock in the afternoon, what will they be like at four o'clock in the morning.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has promised us that he will make a speech at four o'clock in the morning. If he does, I shall no doubt be here and have to listen to it. But I do not believe it will be one of his best efforts. It will not get into his biography, when it comes to be written.
Again I feel that no adequate reason has been given, and no attempt has been made to give a reason. Now that we have two such reasonable	men-usually-as	the
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) occupying the front benches, I suggest we have placed before them a proposal which would commend itself to any man of common sense. I trust that common sense will assert itself.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in starting may I say I think this dog fight will do a great deal of good for the reason that perhaps it will emphasize the inadequacy of the rules of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The inadequacy of the government.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I was a member of one of the rules committees and I made some suggestions-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, we have on the order paper a motion concerning the rules of the house. I think the hon. member will admit that would be the proper time to discuss the rules, but on the amendment to sit until twelve o'clock I do not think the hon. member should enter into that particular subject.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Can anyone else speak on this point of order? What we are dealing with now is a question of the hours.


Alphonse Fournier: Under the rules.


William Joseph Browne: Surely
reference can be made to the rules which are going to be brought in affecting hours.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Perhaps we should say "conduct". The amendment deals with the conduct of the session as does the motion to sit continuously in order to push through the remaining business.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now discussing the main motion, and I think the discussion should be limited to the amendment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am discussing the amendment to the main motion. The amendment in many ways supplements and complements the main motion.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I take objection to that. It destroys the main motion.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That of course is the
minister's opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should refer to the particular amendment. I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the amendment.


Mr. Graydon:: Put them both up for tender.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The amendment extends the hours of sitting of the house this day. It has been brought about because of the delay in bringing forward legislation of vital importance to the house and the country. Sessions are unnecessarily prolonged causing such amendments to be necessary and desirable. It is a good thing that we are having this debate today.


An hon. Member:: A wonderful thing.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It brings out with crystal clarity, as several hon. members have said, the necessity for a change in the rules governing the conduct of legislation passing through the house. By this motion we are extending the hours of sitting. We are doing so for the reason that we are approaching the deadline of the Christmas festival, and it is desirable and necessary for hon. members to take part with their families in this supreme religious function of the year. If it were not for this deadline, if it were not what I shall term this squeeze play against Santa Claus, perhaps this whole business would not have come up and the debate would not have proceeded on its present terms. The reason we are in this situation

is that legislation was not brought into the house and proceeded with from the very commencement of the session. Legislation was indicated in the speech from the throne and it has been delayed, with the result that we have amendments to lengthen the hours of sitting of the house.
I think an increase in the hours of sitting at this time is very desirable. I had hoped that this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) might move an extension of the hours to midnight and possibly the abolition of one of the meal periods, because I felt that would give us sufficient time to debate the legislation we were considering and the other bills without having to do so in an exhausted state. There is a limit, Mr. Speaker, as you must know, and as all hon. members must know, beyond which the brain of the average man will not function coherently and intelligently.


An hon. Member:: That is evident.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the hours of sitting go past a certain point the attention given to very important legislation before us is likely to be warped, and in my opinion the amendment that has been proposed provides exactly the length of sitting necessary without introducing the exhaustion factor which is so dangerous in passing any legislation. I say that one of the most dangerous things *ve have to face is legislation by exhaustion. I had hoped that a motion would be introduced by the Prime Minister so the hours could be extended and we would have an opportunity to continue the important debate in which the house has been engaged. It was suggested if the amendment was acceptable to the mover of what I shall call the exhaustion motion then we would agree, and as a matter of fact we made the suggestion that the hours spent so far in debating this whole question could be made up in other ways. That was not acceptable. Therefore I must emphasize, so far as this most important question is concerned, the danger inherent in our procedural practice.
At the commencement of every session there are long debates, the time spent on which could be more advantageously used if it were possible to set some dates on which various items of legislation would pass through the house. We would not find ourselves, as has been the case in other sessions since I joined the house, faced in the last week or two with some of the most important legislation. With time running out, faced with much that cannot be done, with many contentious bills before us, with frayed tempers, with all the other conditions which destroy the judgment of hon. members, fighting against a deadline as we are now
Business of the House
fighting against the deadline of Christmas, we are asked to pass important legislation.
I think the suggestion that has been made is reasonable. It will assist in every way a reasoned approach to a most contentious bit of legislation. I think it ill becomes the C.C.F. to suggest the exhaustion which this motion would impose and to which this amendment has been moved. I can remember that the last time this house sat through to the morning hours members of the C.C.F, made an ostentatious show of protest by bringing sandwiches into the chamber.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And milk.


Agar Rodney Adamson: And milk. I think such things lower the dignity of this honourable house. Either from bravado or from ostentation they took that form of registering their protest. Now they bring forward this motion, to which an amendment has been moved on which I am speaking, which would impose exhaustion. They have indicated by their previous actions that this is the sort of motion they would ordinarily protest against. This debate has not been a waste of time. It has been an interesting debate, though annoying to a lot of members.


Alphonse Fournier: On both sides.


Agar Rodney Adamson: On both sides. The fact that it has been annoying is a good thing because out of this annoyance may come a better understanding and a better processing of legislation through the house, at proper stages and at proper times during the session. If it does nothing else than that it will have been worth while. The more annoying it is, the more exasperating it is, the more we realize that Christmas is nearer and nearer and Santa Claus is stuck in the chamber-


Alphonse Fournier: The best speech the hon. member ever made.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The irritation which has been engendered may prove a lesson to the government so that in the sessions to come we may have an orderly progress of business through the house. Therefore this debate has been most important on that score.
There is another danger in this type of pressure that is being applied. Instead of coming here as an individual to represent his constituency, as a member of a profession, as one having a knowledge of certain business, as one ready to add to the collective wisdom so that he may become part of the voice of the Canadian people, a member is becoming part of a professional assembly. Members of parliament are becoming members of parliament first and citizens second.

Business of the House


Mr. Muich:: Speak lor yourself.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I still have a profession.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You may need it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Not as much as you will. Hon. members coming down here expecting to be able to look at legislation objectively-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member be good enough to indicate the relevancy of what he is now saying to an amendment to extend the sitting from ten to twelve o'clock?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You must still believe in miracles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit the hon. member is going far beyond the bounds of the amendment on which he is supposed to be speaking.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am speaking to an amendment which has the purpose of lengthening the hours of sitting today. I am simply pointing out that if we are required to sit extra hours it is because the business of the house had not been handled efficiently. One reason that has not been done is that many hon. members have become members of parliament first. They have allowed their judgment to be based solely upon what is politically desirable rather than upon what is economically or socially right.
This is one of the most important principles in all the parliaments of the free peoples. Just as soon as members of parliament base their judgment on what is politically desirable rather than what is right you will have a decay and degeneration of the whole political system. This very amendment to which I am speaking, in fact this whole debate, is a protest against the professional parliamentarian who makes a business of politics and comes here with that in view. It is a protest against a trend which is deplorable, which is dangerous. If this debate has not done anything else, it has brought out that.
I want to mention the filibuster, and it was a filibuster, which the Social Credit party put on on the Bretton Woods agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think the Bretton Woods agreement can be mentioned in discussing this amendment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I shall have to deal with that at another time.


Alphonse Fournier: Next session.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Next sitting, or next session, whatever it is. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of a happy practice that took place long ago
IMr. Adamson.)
when we had all-night sittings. Hon. members on one side of the house threw a baseball across the floor to members on the other side so they would keep awake. I think it was a salutary practice. Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment-


An hon. Member:: With conviction?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, with conviction, and for the reasons I have stated. I protest now, as I have protested before, against legislation being passed by the squeeze play.


An hon. Member:: By a majority.


Agar Rodney Adamson: By a majority, that is
correct, but this legislating by exhaustion, by the squeeze play is a dangerous thing. If we are to have closure-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This subject has been
debated.


Alphonse Fournier: It is out of order just the same, even if it has been debated.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is in order by custom.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Speaker has
decided it is not debatable on this amendment.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is something else I shall have to speak about, because I propose to speak on closure. Then, Mr. Speaker, in this amendment we are faced with the suggestion that we sit for two extra hours today. I am sure they will Be used profitably for the continuation of the debate on the important matters before the house. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because it is of great importance that there be sufficient time for hon. members to have an objective approach, rather than a frustrated approach or an approach caused by annoyance and exhaustion. I believe the two extra hours we have suggested are the optimum of time this house can profitably use. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the house for your courtesy in listening to me for these few minutes.


William Joseph Browne: was not here this morning when the motion was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the house should sit continuously, which means that it could sit until nearly eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has proposed an amendment that instead of sitting from now until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning we should sit from eight o'clock until twelve o'clock this evening. This results in an extension of two hours beyond the normal

hours we have been following for the last few days. If this motion to sit all night is carried it will be quite clear, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) has said, that the members will be physically exhausted. They will not be able to give proper attention to the legislation of the house.
There are seven items on the order paper. I do not think the house leader will say that any one of them is less important than the others, and they all deserve serious consideration. Since they deserve serious consideration, members ought to be in good condition when these measures are considered. How can members be in good condition if they are going to sit all night? As the hon. member for Broadview has said, that legislation will not receive the attention it deserves, and it may have some serious defects which would be prejudicial to the interests of the people of this country. The amendment, therefore, is a reasonable one. We should prolong the sitting this evening by two hours, but any extension beyond that will have the same result as if the motion were adopted.
I quite understand the eagerness of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and other hon. members, to get home for Christmas. It is a natural reason, and a good many members have gone. I counted the number of Liberals in the house today and I believe there are 91, so it looks as if half of them have gone home.


Alphonse Fournier: How many Conservatives?


William Joseph Browne: There are 27 out of 45 here. In any case, it shows that most of the members of the house have gone home and the legislation could not receive the attention it deserves. Why is it that the government does not adjourn the house to a reasonable time in January? I am mindful of the editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning, which suggested that most members were anxious to have their income tax shared between 1951 and 1952. I never heard anyone express that opinion until I read it in the Globe and Mail.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should speak to the amendment.


William Joseph Browne: I am speaking to the amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: You are out of order.


William Joseph Browne: It is relevant to the amendment that we should have some reasonable solution to the impasse that we seem to have reached. The legislation
Business of the House
before the house deserves proper consideration and I say, sir, that it is not going to receive proper consideration. I say that is a habit of this government in every session. When we reach the end of the session, legislation does not receive proper consideration. At the beginning of this session members were encouraged to speak as long as they liked on the address in reply to the speech from the throne so the time of the house would be taken up. On several occasions the house had to be adjourned at five o'clock in the afternoon because there was no business before it. Now when there is a lot of important business to be done, we are faced with two positions; either we sit here all night or we come back on the 27th and pass the legislation without having any discussion on it at all.
I am sure this must be a new situation, even to the majority of the members of this house. I am quite sure the majority of the members on the Liberal side have never been faced with that position before. How many members on that side have sat through an all-night session? I suppose the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who are old hands and have been here a long time, may have sat here that long forty years ago. But I do not think there has been any occasion in the last number of years when anybody has had to sit that long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They may be old hands, but they are not that old.


William Joseph Browne: They therefore do not realize what they are up against. If we are faced with closure, that means the government will put through legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Mr. Speaker has decided that the closure matter is not debatable on this amendment.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I was only pointing out the two positions that we are faced with, and that the amendment which has been brought in by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), namely that we prolong the sitting for two hours this evening, was reasonable. I presume, sir, it is in order to speak of what the alternative would be if the reasonable amendment which has been proposed is not adopted. The alternative is that we sit all night, and that if we have not dealt with all the legislation by tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, we will come back here next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.

Business of the Bouse


William Joseph Browne: That seems to be an apt illustration of the question that was asked by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I think it was last session, when he said: "If we want to do something, who is going to stop us?". The government have a majority and they are going ahead with the legislation. They are going to have the house hours of sitting as they see fit, when there is no particular occasion for such pressure at all. I have not heard yet from the government side of the house any special reason why we should have all this pressure at the present time. What is the reason for it? Is there any hurry for this particular legislation that is on the order paper, or any reason that it should be put through in any special hurry? What is the reason for it? Why does not some member of the government tell the members of this house and tell the public?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: They cannot get a chance.


William Joseph Browne: I am quite sure the members of this house would welcome the remarks of any members of the government if they wish to speak this afternoon. I am quite sure they would be glad to hear from the hon. member who has just interrupted.
As I said at the beginning, I think the amendment is reasonable, and that we should not be expected to sit up here all night. If we do,- we will all be wrecks in the morning. The only time people should be expected to sit up all night is when they are sitting up with a sick person or sitting up at a wake. But I do not think we want this house to look like a wake house, as it would look tomorrow morning. Hon. members on the other side of the house are smiling now, but I do not expect to see any smiles on their faces after they have been sitting up here all night.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Three o'clock in the morning.


William Joseph Browne: For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. I hope other hon. members will give the matter serious consideration and support it also.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the discussion that has arisen suddenly out of today's proceedings. Not only have I been listening with interest to the arguments that are being presented in a more or less orthodox fashion by

the members of this house but also to the catcalls that are coming from behind the curtains and various places in this house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On the government side.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, on the government side.


An hon. Member:: Today or yesterday?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think a rather significant fact is emerging out of this discussion. I might sum it up by saying that the discussion is indicative of the fact that the opposition is at last taking a formal stand in the chamber against tactics that we might call autocratic, which have been becoming all to obvious.
I remember reading an editorial back last May, I think it was, to the effect that all opposition in Canada had collapsed; and it went on to explain that the present government had developed the technique of moving so far to the right and so far to the left that it had pushed off the C.C.F. on the one side and the Progressive Conservatives on the other. Today, however, we find members of the official opposition taking a stand against this political expediency for the sake of holding power. It may be that the gesture that has been made in this chamber today is rather futile because, inevitably, amendments will be voted down by a government majority. Nonetheless there is a principle at stake here. I feel that, on this extremely important occasion, anything that can be said should be said to protect the rights of the minority groups in this house.
The attempt that is being made by members of the opposition to get a fair hearing for the legislation still remaining on the order paper will inevitably be voted down unless we can persuade certain members of the government to think differently and come to our support. While that may be a forlorn hope, there is always the possibility. While that gesture can be voted down in the house, it is not the first time this stand has been taken. My very presence in this chamber is the result of a stand we took along similar lines against autocratic tendencies. On that occasion we did not depend upon the verdict of a limited number in this chamber. We depended upon the verdict of the public, the citizens of Canada, and they responded to the challenge in the affirmative. I feel that if we could put this question facing us today to the broader public, we would get the same affirmative response.
We are faced with some extremely difficult pieces of legislation. As I pointed out in my remarks on this subject previously, as a new member of the house I was quite amazed that we were not proceeding to a discussion of the

more important legislation at an earlier stage in the session. I was amazed at the devious treatment of this legislation on resale price maintenance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry
to interrupt the hon. member. I think he should confine his remarks to the matter under discussion.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I shall try to stick as closely as possible to the point.
We have been led to the present impasse because of the delay to which I have referred which has necessitated the debate this afternoon and the amendment to which I am speaking at the present moment. I am told the impasse that has resulted from the delay is not a new situation, but that it recurs repeatedly session after session. I am rather proud to be a member of this house at this time, particularly a member of the official opposition taking a stand against these tactics. With regard to the amendment, it seems a reasonable approach to the problem. We have been forced into the situation where we are gradually being prevented from debating adequately the remaining legislation because of the lack of time and because of the pressure of the approaching Christmas season. Along with other members of the official opposition, I am disappointed that we have not the support of the other minority groups in the house, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit parties, at this time because a fundamental principle is at stake here. Being a small number of members, we are faced with an almost impossible situation. It looks as if we are going to be down to something like thirty to carry on this debate, on the important legislation before us, in a continuous marathon without any opportunity for rest or respite. As has been pointed out, it seems hardly a logical and reasonable approach to the problem.
A suggestion has been put forward that we should delay consideration of the legislation perhaps until the next session, when the whole matter could be discussed intelligently and reasonably. Then we have the alternative in the amendment before the house, and I think it is a reasonable one. The very fact that we have been sitting continuously and have had morning sittings all this week and for a part of last week has reduced a good many of the members to the point of exhaustion. Some have already left the struggle and gone home. I, as a member who has to go some considerable distance to get back for Christmas, can appreciate their desire to get away; but I considered it of sufficient importance to remain behind and take a
Business oj the House
stand on these issues that I have endeavoured to outline in these few remarks this afternoon. The opposition has not collapsed. I say that the opposition, in its stand during this debate, has contributed something to good government in this country and to the preservation of democratic parliamentary procedure. It has pointed the way to the time when there will be an alternative to the present administration.
(Translation):


Mr. Henri Courlemanche (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words in support of the amendment before the house.
I am wondering if the opposition should be criticized for its present stand. Our duty is to consider and to discuss legislation freely. Is it the opposition's fault if the government is asking us, at the very last moment, to agree to a bill of prime importance? And yet on certain days we have had to adjourn a little earlier than the limit set by standing orders because.of lack of work. Today, on the eve of the Christmas holidays, I understand that certain members who have not the chance or the privilege to live as close to parliament as some others, should like to leave immediately for their home. I understand all that. But that is no reason to jam through the house a bill that requires serious consideration.
The standing orders have been approved after serious consideration. We have set reasonable hours of sitting. We are now asked to sit until disgraceful hours. Why should members of this house, regardless of party, have to put in longer hours than anyone else? With our backs to the wall we are being forced, by a majority, to approve this legislation against resale price maintenance, without proper time to discuss it. What does it mean?


Jean Lesage: On a point of order. I would like to know what bearing the hon. member's remarks have on the motion to extend sitting hours from ten to twelve tonight? We are now debating the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). The debate has nothing to do with the motion moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or with resale price legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was just expressing his opening remarks; I would ask him to return to the matter at hand as soon as possible.

Business of the House


Henri Courtemanche: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; we are just now faced with a situation where we are asked-
Mr Lesage: To prolong the debate.


Henri Courtemanche: Where we are asked to express our ideas about anything-


Jean Lesage: This is childishness.


Henri Courtemanche: I wonder which side is being the most childish.


Jean Lesage: Listen to yourself and you will see.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Henri Courtemanche: I believe it is the duty of every member to try to find in a bill everything he is entitled to expect from it and that it is also his duty to express his opinion. Why, then, should we not be permitted to express our views now? Why does the government want to finish the session this week? We have a mandate to fulfil and we would certainly not give the impression of being responsible people if we were to pass so important a bill in such haste. Just to prove to my hon. friend for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) that I am more responsible than he would care to believe, I am asking him to discuss this motion more thoroughly with his friends and see if he cannot find a way to reach an understanding. We would thus be proving we are not here to waste the time of the house but rather to deal with the measures brought before the house with the necessary sense of responsibility.
I also ask that the amendment be reconsidered in Order that this debate should not be unnecessarily drawn out. In that way the people would not be left under the impression that an attempt is being made to force the opposition into a strait-jacket.
(Text):	'


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). I do so because I personally feel that twelve o'clock tonight is late enough for anyone to sit. Some hon. members have mentioned the fact that they sit all night in meetings. That is perfectly all right, but there would have been absolutely no necessity for members to sit all night long if the government had brought in the legislation at the proper time.
'.Mr. Lesage.]
As has also been said, this legislation, if it is absolutely necessary, could have been brought in at the last session.
During this session on more than one occasion the house has adjourned early in the day owing to the fact that there was no business before the house for the members to proceed with. We have in the house at the present time just a handful of members. A few minutes ago there was only one minister in his seat. I dare say the other two who are in here now were taking a nap to prepare themselves for the all-night session.


Mr. Hosking:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And if the hon. member on the government side would come from behind the curtain, perhaps it would be more in line with* proper procedure.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: There are quite a few of your own behind the curtain.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As the hon. member has just mentioned, some members on this side are behind the curtain. But let me add that they are not interrupting.


An hon. Member:: They are asleep.


Alphonse Fournier: They are speaking all the time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Minister of Public Works has said that they are speaking all the time. Let me say to him that I have not spoken very often this session.


Alphonse Fournier: I apologize.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He would deny you the right to speak at once, if he had his way.


Paul-Émile Côté: Make it short.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I will make it as short as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under the circumstances.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But I feel sure the hon. member would like me to continue as long as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear; we are all interested.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Because I know very well he is one who is going to support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to sit all night. I am just waiting for him to go out and take his nap so as to prepare himself for his all-night sitting.


Paul-Émile Côté: It would be safer here than anywhere else.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Perhaps the hon. member is safer here than anywhere else, because there is a terrible storm outside.


James Garfield Gardiner: Since the hon. member has referred to the fact that I was here alone a

little while ago, I might give him this much information; that during the period hon. members on the other side of the house have been taking up the time of the house, the government was able to hold a full-size council meeting and do a lot of things for the good of the country.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure, then, that the cabinet owes a great debt of gratitude to the opposition for giving them that opportunity. It is about time they did hold a full cabinet meeting to decide just what kind of business they are going to carry out.


George Alexander Drew: It is the first time they have had a chance for a full cabinet meeting for some time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, it is the first time they have had a chance to have a full cabinet meeting because-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Out of order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, if the hon. member would look up from his book when he speaks, we might recognize him.


Pierre Gauthier: My book is far more interesting that your speech.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not doubt that at all. I was saying that this is perhaps the one chance the cabinet has had to get together, because cabinet members-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who started this?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member come back to the amendment?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the subject of the cabinet sitting this afternoon was raised by the Minister of Agriculture. I suggest to him that if he wants to stop the discussion of this motion a very clear way is indicated to him; because we are ready to sit tonight and get on with the business of the house, but we are not prepared to submit to the big stick.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not I who raised the question. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) suggested that the cabinet ministers had been having a nap, so I indicated to him that they were having a council meeting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The same thing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then they have been napping for a long time; otherwise this business would have been brought up earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must ask the hon. member to revert to the amendment.
Business of the House


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes. As I said, when I stood up first-


Mr. Pearson:: For the third time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough).


Alphonse Fournier: We never doubted that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think it is a very fair amendment. We are meeting half-way the wishes of the government and those of the hon. member who put the motion. I think it would be only fair for the government and others to gupport the amendment. Then we could get on with the business of the house.


An hon. Member:: Give us a chance to support it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are hard up now.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I have risen to support the amendment, because we have been sitting all day for absolutely nothing. I was never in my life connected with any institution that had so very little respect for the value of time; and I would like that to sink in. If in private life we conducted our business in the same way business is conducted in the House of Commons, we would all go broke.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You should know.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has made an interjection. I would like to tell him that if he had brought this to the house in an orderly way after the matter was first mentioned on October 9, he would not be saddled with this kind of performance now.


Major James William Coldwell: "Performance" is right.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The fact of the matter is that many days during this session we sat waiting for some direction from the government to carry on.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Who are "we"?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: They had nothing to offer us until the 65-day period, which is necessary for a session of parliament, was reached. No one was in a hurry.
An. hon. Member: Order.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What is wrong with that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They don't like it.


Henry Alfred Hosking: It has nothing to do with the hours ui sitting.

Business of the House


Mr. Riley:: Would you like some old copies of Hansard to read?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: According to the constitution it appears to be necessary to put in 65 days before we can collect our indemnity. In my opinion this session should never have been called at all. It is the second session in one year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that he has drifted far from the principle of the amendment.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Well, I certainly want to abide by the rules, and I do not want to say anything that is not in conformity with the amendment before the house. But the fact of the matter is that because we waste so much time, surely it is in order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Surely it is in order to say that I agree with the amendment that we sit tonight until twelve o'clock. This is not the first day's performance that has gone on in the house, and to no advantage. We have wasted more than one day.


Jean Lesage: You have.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, I have not. If the government had brought down its legislation in an orderly way, if it had brought down the important legislation when it should have been brought down, there would have been plenty of time to discuss and dispose of it. But because they brought it in at an hour when they thought the opposition would be weakened sufficiently-[DOT]


Mr. Garson:: The proceedings speak for themselves on that point.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: They thought the opposition in the dying hours of the session would be weak, that it would fold up, and that the bill would be passed without any argument. Now they are finding the opposition is just a little stiffer than they expected. I do not wish to detain the house at length. I think perhaps this will be a good lesson to the government to not try this kind of performance on the opposition again because the opposition, apart from numbers, are just a little stronger than the government think they are. I should like to warn the government to adjust their program of business for the next session of parliament and bring in their more important measures at the commencement of the session, not toward the end. If they do so perhaps they will get more co-operation, and it will be a lot better for the country at large.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear some of the members on the government side, especially the cabinet ministers


Alphonse Fournier: You don't say!


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to sit down if one of the cabinet ministers would get up and express an opinion about this matter, because I think it is very important. Here we have a proposition before us that we should pass all the legislation the house still has to deal with in an all-night marathon session. Every member of the house who has stayed up all night at one time or another knows the state one's mind gets in around two, three or four o'clock in the morning. He knows perfectly well that thp kind of consideration any hon. member could give legislation of any nature, let alone vitally important legislation of the type that is still to come before the house, is not the kind of consideration such legislation merits. I feel confident that when the motion comes to a vote all members of the cabinet will stand up and vote for it.


An hon. Member:: All the Liberal members too.


George Harris Hees: They of course will vote for it, but I would be very distressed as a member of the house, whether in the opposition or on the government side, to see the cabinet, who are responsible for the conduct of affairs in the house, stand up and vote for a measure that will just make this House of Commons a shame and a farce, that will put legislation on the statute books for which we will be able to feel nothing but shame. It will not be the kind of legislation the people who sent us here expect us to pass.
I should like to hear some of the members of the cabinet express an opinion on this matter. Do they feel that jamming all this important legislation through in an all-night marathon exhaustion session is the way the business of the house should be conducted? I think the house deserves some leadership from the cabinet. I believe we would like to hear them express an opinion on this question, and say whether there are good reasons for passing legislation in this way. If they feel it is the right way to conduct the business of the country I for one would be very interested to hear such views expressed.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: In
your hearing.


George Harris Hees: I should like to hear the members of the cabinet express their opinion.


Sarto Fournier: Just wait and see.


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to wait for any length of time if I thought an opinion would be forthcoming, but I am afraid it will not be. I earnestly request the members of the government to let the house know what they think about this motion and whether they believe it is the right way to pass legislation. I hope before the motion is voted on we will hear that kind of expression of opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get back into this debate. After all, the purpose of the motion I moved this morning was to expedite dealing with the business before the house, not that we should spend the whole day deciding whether or not we are going to sit.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That put the monkey wrench in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is before the house
now an amendment to my motion which would have us take the usual supper adjournment and then sit tonight from eight until twelve o'clock. That has been put forward by those who support it as a reasonable proposition. All I want to say is that if I thought it was a reasonable proposition I would not hesitate a moment to withdraw my motion, if the house would give me consent, in favour of that proposition; but I do not see that it is reasonable. We have before us quite a few items of business to be dealt with and decided upon before this session ends. I do not see any possibility of the house giving these items adequate discussion in four hours tonight, in the eight hours that we sit tomorrow and in the few hours we would have on Thursday, December 27, in the light of the Prime Minister's announcement that closure is to be applied.
Therefore it seems to me that to pass an amendment which would lay down in ironclad fashion that we must adjourn at twelve o'clock tonight would be to deny the house the time it might wish to have to deal with the measures that are before us. Most of those who have spoken in support of the amendment and in opposition to my motion characterize my motion as necessarily calling for an all-night sitting, for a sitting until ten or eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. That is not so. It depends upon the house whether my motion results in an all-night sitting or a very short sitting. My motion does not fix a time for adjournment. The amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) does fix a time for adjournment. My motion leaves it open to the house to take a short space of time, to take until twelve
Business of the House
o'clock if we wish, or to take longer if we wish to conclude more of the business on the order paper.
I suggest if my motion were accepted by the house the result would be that some time tonight the house would be satisfied that it had done sufficient business for the day, and when that point was reached a motion to adjourn the house would probably carry. I want to be perfectly fair. I doubt if a motion to adjourn the house would carry until sufficient business had been done, including disposition of the contentious matter that was before us and perhaps three or four other items on the order paper. But to lay it down as a hard and fast decision that we must adjourn at twelve o'clock tonight after spending the whole day discussing whether or not we are going to sit is denying-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You could have accepted the amendment immediately after lunch.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The offer the hon. member for Kamloops made on the floor of the house had coupled with it a threat. The threat was that if I was not prepared to accept his offer they would continue debating at length the procedural question now before us. Would the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) in all seriousness expect me to treat that as on olive branch, or that it was a reasonable offer in any sense of the term? I cannot see that it was. Frankly I feel that those of us who would like to get home for Christmas have a right to cast our vote on the various propositions connected with the contentious matter before us. I think I have a right to vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops to the Combines Investigation Act. I think I have a right to vote on any other amendment that might be moved on the motion for second reading, and I think I have a right to vote on the motion for second reading itself. If there are only a few hours between now and the time we go home tomorrow night and if only a few hours will be available next Thursday, it raises the question of whether it is worth while for some of us to come all the way back for one day. We are in effect being denied our parliamentary right-


Donald Methuen Fleming: By the Prime Minister's motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to render our decision on the price maintenance question as well as on the other questions that are still before us. Therefore I submit the reasonable thing for the house to do is to accept my motion. That does not mean we necessarily sit all night. The net result might very well be the hour of adjournment suggested by the hon. member for Hamilton West in her amendment. It
2296	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
might very well follow as a result of my motion being adopted that by twelve o'clock tonight we would have completed the business of the house and the house would decide to adjourn, but if we pass an amendment saying that we have to adjourn at twelve o'clock, where are we if we have not got rid of today's business?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In bed by twelve-thirty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that the house should come to a decision on this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the house would have come to a decision on other important matters in which he is anxious to have a decision if he had not thrown a monkey wrench into the works, if he had not done that with all the appearance of doing it deliberately so that he himself could obstruct the procedure of this house and deliver more sententious speeches. He himself is responsible for prolonging and delaying the procedure of this house.
The hon. member has just said he feels that he should have the right to vote on the legislative matters before the house; that he should have the right to vote on second reading; that he should have the right to vote on this amendment. The hon. member will have a right to vote. Nobody is going to take away his right to vote. What the hon. member means is that after the government has deliberately delayed the introduction of this legislation until the dying days of this session we should allow ourselves to submit to the compulsion of that tactic and refrain from adequate debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is saying, "I think all that can or should be said in this debate has been said, and I want to vote." In other words he is saying, "I do not want to hear any other member speak on this matter; I think we should have a vote now."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member's attitude
is far more domineering and hectoring than that of the government. If it does indicate anything, it indicates the folly of electing a C.C.F. government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? I am not going to worry about the remark he has just made. My question relates to the point he made just a moment ago. Will he reconcile for me his offer that we should have a vote soon on the amendment before the house with his suggestion that there should be still further debate on the question? You cannot have it both ways.
	!


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was going to come to that
eventually, and I might as well come to it now. The offer made to the C.C.F. this afternoon, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well, was made on the basis that this threat of compulsion should be withdrawn. I point out to you that the offer was made immediately after lunch, just after 2.30 when the house met again this afternoon, and it was repeated by two speakers on this side who each offered to give up his place, to resume his seat immediately, if there was any indication from the C.C.F., the government and the Social Credit party, all of whom are in collusion on this motion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I submit that the charge
of collusion is unfounded and the word should be withdrawn.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: On a question of privilege-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member did not
say he was speaking on a question of privilege.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I submit that
the charge which has just been made is unjustified and that the word "collusion" is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member spoke of
conspiracy among-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not say anything about
conspiracy.


Major James William Coldwell: Collusion, which is akin
to it.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member has made
his question of privilege. I submit there is nothing unparliamentary in the word "collusion". I might as well tell the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has objected to the use of the word "collusion" as between different parties.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member made the charge that there was collusion among the government, the C.C.F. and the Social Credit members of this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is at the present time, in that you are all supporting it.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the C.C.F. party has said that there is no collusion between his

party and any other party in the house regarding the question which is now before the house, and the hon. member for Kamloops must take his word for it.


Solon Earl Low: Earlier in the day I said the same thing with respect to this group, that there was no collusion among the three of us.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances
I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops to accept the word of these two leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept the assurance of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that there is no collusion. In that event I think it is desirable that we define our terms. Since apparently we are not in agreement as to the definition of the word "collusion", I will say that there is co-operation among those three parties on the motion before the house. The hon. members who are concerned1 tell me that there is no collusion among them, and I accept that statement. But I tell them that they will have to face the fact, that they will have to deal with the rumours that are going around the corridors of this building that there was a consultation between their parties and members of the government on the advisability of presenting such a motion. I am reporting that as a fact. It seems to me that if they do not want to explain that, it is for them to decide.


Major James William Coldwell: May I rise again on a question of privilege? The dictionary defines the word "collusion" as meaning a fraudulent and secret understanding between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit, and of course in any other way. If there is fraudulent and secret understanding charged against members, I submit that the word is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I withdraw the imputation on any broad line, but it certainly seems to me that there has been a secret understanding which has now come out into the open. I withdraw any imputation. I am glad to do so. I did not look it up before using the word, but I have already substituted the word "co-operation".


Major James William Coldwell: That is open and aboveboard and quite different from the other word.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member can draw his own conclusion. I have stated it as a fact and he will have to deal with or ignore the rumours which are circulating through this building that there was a prior consultation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has endeavoured to set himself up as arbiter of whether or not all the debate that
Business of the House
could usefully take place has in fact taken place. I was pointing out that for him to do so is to go far beyond any arbitrary position he has ever accused this government of taking. It shows the folly and the danger to which we would expose this parliament and this country if at any time the C.C.F. should be elected to power.
The hon. member must have known this motion would be bound to give rise to a considerable debate. Had it been introduced by any other party or by the government with respect to a measure in which his party was vitally interested it would have given rise not to one day's debate but to a debate of two, three, four or five days.


Jean Lesage: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops, in spite of the indications that have been given to him by you, Mr. Speaker, and by Mr. Deputy Speaker, is still speaking on the main motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is not dealing at all with the amendment before the house. Before you came into the house Mr. Deputy Speaker warned hon. members that they should abide strictly by the rules, that they should speak to the amendment which is before the house at this time and not to the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with what has been said, but it is difficult to speak on the amendment without making some reference to the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members of the opposition say "hear, hear." I am going to try to enforce the rule that the debate should be relevant, in spite of the difficulty. The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) during the course of his remarks referred quite fully to the main motion, and to the result of adopting that motion. It is, therefore, not fair for me to tell the hon member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that he cannot say anything about it. I will ask the member for Kamloops to make his remarks as brief as possible and reply to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. After that has been done will hon. members kindly address their remarks to the amendment and not to the main motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought I should like, if I may, to answer a question which the member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me in the course of his remarks this afternoon. I am glad you pointed out to the member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Lesage) that I was in fact dealing, at the time of his interruption, with the remarks of the member for Winnipeg North Centre. As I said earlier,

Business of the House I will go back for a few minutes to the question he asked of me regarding the offer which was made this afternoon. The offer was in the same terms as the amendment which we are now debating, namely that we would try to reach a compromise on the suggestion that the house sit beyond its usual hours, or until twelve o'clock tonight. The member for Winnipeg North Centre knows quite well that offer was made unconditionally when it was first expressed by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). There were no threats attached to it, and when I repeated the offer I did not attach a threat to it. I simply said I had some remarks to make on the motion before the house, but that I would gladly resume my seat immediately if there was any indication from any of those in other parties of a desire to discuss this compromise. If there was no such indication then I must be forgiven for not sitting down, because if I sat down I would lose my right to continue speaking. If there was to be no discussion of the compromise, I desired to say a few words on the amendment; that was the substance of my remarks earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member went farther than that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How the hon. member can read any threat into it, I do not know. If he cares to take the attitude that anyone who interferes with or opposes his motion is threatening him, then of course he can draw that conclusion. I think neither the hon. members in the house nor the people in Canada generally will go along with him in his assumption that what he suggests to the house should be accepted without discussion, without delay, and in all due humility. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expects that result to follow, I can assure him he is bound to be disappointed.
I stress the folly of this procedure and the unwisdom of the refusal to accept a reasonable offer, which I point out was made as early as 2.30 this afternoon. It is all very well for hon. members to say we are being unreasonable in asking them to accept it when there would be only four hours left until twelve. I repeat that the offer was first made at 2.30 this afternoon when there would have been about seven and one-half hours, and the member for Winnipeg North Centre is well aware of the fact that the amendment his party has indicated they wish to submit to Bill No. 36 would have been discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should try to keep away from the bill and discuss the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well; I shall try to do so.
The purpose of my remarks at that time was
(Mr. Fulton.]

to refute the suggestion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre that it was unreasonable for us to make this offer because there would be only four hours left. There would have been seven and one-half hours, and he knew there would have been time for his party to discuss the amendment which they had in mind. We can see, therefore, just how unreasonable he and his party are in rejecting an offer when they say they wanted to discuss the amendment. They have rejected a reasonable compromise which would have cleared the way for them to discuss that all this afternoon and this evening. Mr. Speaker, I feel that there was never a clearer example of double talk than that in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just indulged.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The words "double talk" are not allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you say the words "double talk" are not allowed, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw and say there has never been a clearer example of saying one thing and meaning another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a definitely unparliamentary statement to make about another hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think probably the member for Winnipeg North Centre knows what I mean, and if you say the expression is unparliamentary I shall not repeat it-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and I shall withdraw. As I was saying, the unwisdom of the refusal to accept this motion was demonstrated when the member for Winnipeg North Centre said he could not accept it because there would not have been time to discuss the amendment which his party offers, and in which he is interested. I believe the straits in which the hon. member finds himself in his attempt to justify his rejection of this offer, and the situation in which the house finds itself, follow the attempt to apply the big stick, either by way of the motion offered this morning or in the threat uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself. I trust the house will accept the reasonable suggestion we have put forward in our amendment and reject the motion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: I rise to speak for a moment on this amendment, and I do so merely for the purpose of pointing out that I do not think due consideration has been given to the Hansard reporters. There are seven regular Hansard reporters, but for

several weeks they have been operating with one short. There is no available relief. I feel that is one thing that should be taken into serious consideration. In speaking to the amendment I might say that it would fix the time at which we would close at twelve o'clock tonight, and this would give these Hansard reporters some relief. If they have to work all night it is humanly impossible for them to do a good job. In that connection I wonder if any consideration has been given to the members of the press gallery.


Alphonse Fournier: Take good care of them. You need them.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am not saying anything about the insinuation that has been offered. I am not making these observations for that purpose at all. I do feel we should consider these people who have to sit here hour after hour listening to the discussions that take place in this chamber. I do want to make this appeal, Mr. Speaker, for the members of the Hansard staff. As I say, they have been operating at a disadvantage having one of their members away. How they can carry on-


An hon. Member:: You have said that three times.


Frank Exton Lennard: -if the amendment is not approved and if the motion is passed, I cannot understand.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I must confess to a sense of keen disappointment at what has happened here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Rinfret:: What a sense of humour!


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Liberals agree with him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was speaking just before the recess at one o'clock. Had I continued to speak at that time I would have said many things that were in my heart to say and that I think should have been said in the house. However, when the house resumed at 2.30 this afternoon, I came into the house with a mandate given to me by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the official opposition which I laid before the house in a spirit of conciliation and co-operation.
I said at that time that it was not unusual for there to be concerted at a late stage of the session proposals for extending the hours of the evening sitting. I said that we of the official opposition were quite prepared to be reasonable about this matter, and that we were not taking any stiff-necked attitude about it. With that authority I made to the house and to all three parties represented
Business of the House
here outside of the official opposition the proposal that we should agree to extend the evening sitting. I said that we would be prepared to go as far as two hours. That would take the sitting up to midnight. As I indicated at that time, I felt that was a generous offer of co-operation put forward in a constructive spirit, in a spirit indicative of our wish to see the business of the house conducted in an orderly fashion, and also-and I said this-to expedite the essential business of the house.
I had hoped there would be enough leadership in the government that we might at that moment expect the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the leader of the house, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), to rise and say that proposal was accepted in the spirit in which it was put forward. I fully expected that acceptance. Had that offer been accepted, the business that was to come before the house today, as announced last night at adjournment, would have had already this afternoon three and a half hours of debate and tonight would have been assured of four of debate. Including what remains of this afternoon's sitting, that is a total of seven and three-quarter hours of debate. When I took my seat there was not a move on the other side; there was not a gesture from the government that they were the least bit interested in the generous, fair and co-operative proposal I had made. One therefore can only conclude that the government does not want co-operation in this house. Apparently they prefer to proceed by the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member referred to an offer which was made earlier in the day but which apparently was not accepted by the house or was not acted upon. There is now a new amendment before the house. I think the hon. member should now direct his remarks to that amendment. I allowed the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) to speak at some length on the subject because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had done so. I think those speeches balance each other, and that we should now come back to the amendment before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I respectfully remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the present motion embodies the offer which I then made.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct; and I have suggested to the hon. member that he should discuss the amendment which embodies this proposal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that is the basis upon which I was approaching this question, namely that the amendment now before the house embodies
2300

Business of the House
the offer then made, and it only became necessary to make this amendment because, under the circumstances I have just related, there was from the government or from the mover of the original motion no indication that they were or he was the least bit interested in the offer that was then made in good faith and in the spirit of co-operation.


An hon. Member:: Let us vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendment proposes that the evening sitting today be extended by two hours, from 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock.


An hon. Member:: We all know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of the delay this afternoon for which the government is responsible, the amendment will not now offer the house as much opportunity to proceed with the business of the day as it would have offered if it had been readily taken up and accepted when it was introduced. I think that delay is regrettable, particularly at this late stage of the session when time means much to us all. The responsibility, sir, will rest upon the government for this delay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Well said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In case I did not make myself fully heard or understood, I repeat that the responsibility rests upon the government.


Mr. Arsenault:: You will find out in the next general election.


An hon. Member:: Time will tell.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, time will tell. With the government, responsibility will be shared by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who had an opportunity to rise at any time during the course of this debate on the amendment and say: "That is a fair proposal. I will accept it. I will ask the house for permission to withdraw my motion".
We heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre undertake to make some comparisons between the amendment and the motion. His suggestion was that the amendment had the effect of imposing upon the house an iron-clad hour of adjournment. It is no more true to say that than it is to say that the rules of the house in laying down the hour of adjournment, or any other motions except one that leaves the hour of adjournment open, impose an iron-clad hour of adjournment. I do not think that is a fair and accurate description of the effect.
If the business of the house had progressed to the point where we were within sight of
fMr. Fleming.]
a goal acceptable to the house, then it would be possible for the house to deal with the situation then emerging. But what is the alternative, Mr. Speaker? The alternative is an indefinite session. That is the situation. That is the choice that confronts the house. Will there be, as is proposed in the amendment, an extension of two hours in the sitting tonight, with adjournment at the hour of midnight; or will we have an indefinite session which will not contribute to the effective discharge of the duties of the members of this house? We know from experience that this house does not do good work when it sits late at night. People become weary; nerves become frayed. Experience has surely taught us that we do not do good and effective work in these late hours. We made an offer in good faith, an offer that is now embodied in the amendment.


Hughes Cleaver: Let us vote on the amendment. You have held it up all afternoon.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Sit down and let us vote.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have been waiting hopefully for some indication from the Prime Minister or someone speaking on behalf of the government that the proposal, the fair offer that is embodied in this amendment, would be accepted by the government.


George James McIlraith: Let us vote on it and we will find out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is no use for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to say he is not satisfied with it. The decision, in the last analysis, will be taken by the government majority in this house. The government majority will certainly vote as the Prime Minister or some minister speaking on behalf of the government, with the authority of the government, invites them to. Is there enough leadership in the government, Mr. Speaker, in the face of this situation, so that we may expect the Prime Minister to say on behalf of the majority in this house who support him that the proposal is acceptable, and that the government majority will support this amendment? If the Prime Minister will say that we will ask no more; we will accept his statement and the matter can be disposed of.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who along with his leader took strong objection to suggestions that there was something of an understanding between the government and the C.C.F. in this matter, obviously is not going to be permitted in these circumstances to pledge the government or the action of the government majority on this matter. It would be extraordinary if at this

stage, in view of what has been said, he undertook to do that. But will the Prime Minister, or will the government, just give us that simple assurance? Then it is quite obvious the amendment could be adopted and the house would be free to pursue the business of the day. How can the house, short of an undertaking of that kind from the Prime Minister or someone speaking with the authority of the government and on behalf of the government majority in this house, submit to a course which has within it the means of destroying fundamental rights of minorities in this house?


Alphonse Fournier: Do
you believe that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) finds merriment in the suggestion that there are fundamental rights of the minorities in this house that ought to be protected.


Hughes Cleaver: You have exercised them all day today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What are you doing now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose it is the same kind of laugh in which the Minister of Justice indulged in this house several weeks ago when an hon. member was detailing smuggling operations in which he indicated he had had a hand. There was the same kind of laughter from the-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -from the Minister of Justice.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What the hon. member is referring to has nothing to do with the amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the reference is proper. In any event it refers to something which took place during some other debate. I do not think it is a proper reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will not pursue that aspect of my discussion of the Minister of Justice, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Six fifteen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Six fifteen, Mr. Speaker.


Hughes Cleaver: Go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready to continue this debate?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Six fifteen.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not finished, and it is 6.15.


Some hon. Members:: Six fifteen.
94699-146J
Business of the House Mr. Abbott: Merry Christmas to one and all.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House December 20, 1951
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber tomorrow, Friday, the 21st December, at 12.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



MOTION TO SIT THIS DAY WITHOUT INTERMISSION OR ADJOURNMENT AT TEN O'CLOCK

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles:
That this day's sitting of the house continue without the usual intermission at one o'clock p.m. and at 6.15 o'clock p.m., and that the house shall not be adjourned at ten o'clock p.m. this day.
And the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fair-clough.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with one or two remarks that emerged during the course of the debate this afternoon. During that discussion we at times were discussing both the motion and the amendment, and you urged hon. members to restrict their remarks solely to the amendment. I now ask for your advice in the matter. I have been making a serious attempt to follow the course of procedure in the house. I have listened attentively to the rulings Your Honour has given on the various points of order that have arisen, I do not wish to be ruled out of order, and it is for that reason I now ask your advice.
My understanding of amendments is that there are three kinds, the first of which adds words, the second of which strikes out words and substitutes others, and the third of which strikes out the original motion and substitutes

Business of the House
something entirely different. That is the type of amendment we now have before us.
I have always understood that under those circumstances the house was privileged to consider the motion and the amendment as alternative propositions. Paragraph 338 in Beauchesne's third edition states:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who. without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, "That", and to substitute in their place other words of a different import. In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
Then 1 find in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, fifteenth edition, at page 398 a paragraph headed "Object of an Amendment and Effect on Debate". The paragraph is as follows:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to present to the house a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.
The latter purpose may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, "that" and to substitute in their place other words of a different import. In that case debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment but includes the purpose both of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
My question is this: Is not the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) one proposition which is held before us of a continuous sitting, and the amendment which has been presented an alternative proposition of a sitting up to midnight of this day? Consequently in debate, in order to show the reasons in favour of adopting the amendment, it is essential to point out the weaknesses of the original motion and the strength of the amendment. Alternatively a person supporting the motion would wish to show the strength of that motion and the weaknesses of the amendment. There you have alternative propositions for the consideration of the house. Restricting the debate solely to the amendment seems to me to limit debate on the matter, because it is difficult to advance all the reasons in favour of the amendment without at the same time pointing out the way in which the amendment is superior to the main motion. I ask this question in order that the debate may proceed in an orderly fashion. For my own guidance I should like your comment, because if I am permitted to discuss the points that have been raised on the main motion and point out that the alternative amendment is a better proposition, then I

should like to comment on some remarks that were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). May I have your comments, sir, before proceeding?


Mr. Speaker:: The question the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has raised is quite important. As I said during the debate, it is very difficult to debate the amendment without some reference to the main motion. Those may not have been my words but that is the import of what I said. During the debate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) called my attention to the fact that hon. members were debating the main motion. At that time I pointed out it was not proper to debate the main motion. I have not objected to a reference to the main motion, but so often during the course of this debate hon. members have forgotten the amendment and have been debating the main motion. The main motion was debated at some length before the amendments were moved, and hon. members in debating the amendments were setting forth reasons not why the amendments should be carried but why the main motion should not be carried.
Hon. members should address themselves at this time to the amendment under consideration. I will not object to a reference to the main motion in order to establish why the amendment should be carried. The house must not lose sight of the fact that at the present time it is the amendment which the house must consider accepting or rejecting, not the main motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the amendment putting forward the proposition that the sitting should be extended two hours tonight is the course that should be followed by the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whose name will be forever linked with the course of this debate today, suggested that if we sat during part of the night we might perchance finish our work without too much delay. In other words, I gained the impression that he meant that perhaps if we continued from ten until two or from ten until four we might find we had completed the work on the order paper. I suggest that to sit from ten to twelve tonight plus the normal sitting hours tomorrow would accomplish the same purpose in a much more orderly fashion. That is why the amendment has been put forward and supported by so many members on this side. We are anxious to deal with the items on the order paper after at least a certain amount of rest during the night, and we are quite content to add two hours to the deliberations today.

There was one other point I had in connection with this debate, but perhaps Your Honour may not feel that I am in order in raising it. What disturbed me also was that in the course of the debate, although the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated that he had no intention of taking part, nevertheless he made a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and it is in that regard that I should like some direction as to what course the debate should now take. If statements are made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am asking this in all seriousness and in order to gain instruction. If during the course of the debate hon. members make statements of any sort-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -that may be interpreted as having an influence on the course-


William Alfred Robinson: I must rise to a point of order. Is this relevant to the discussion now before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know yet what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre proposes to say. He has referred to something that was said earlier in the day. Certainly he would have to relate it to the amendment for it to be in order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was just coming to the conclusion of that question. My point is simply that if statements are made by any hon. member in the course of the debate that have a bearing on the motion or amendment, which relate to' the hours of sitting, and if that statement indicates that if the sitting is not prolonged something else is going to happen, then my question is whether we may not debate that particular statement. The statement, of course, was the reference to closure.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not allow a debate on closure at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am grateful for the direction, because that was the point I was not sure about. I shall conclude my remarks now by asking the house to support the amendment extending the hours of sitting by two hours tonight so we can come to grips with the problems ahead of us and then resume the normal procedure tomorrow after a proper night's rest, when we will be fresh and able to deal with these important matters.


Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, never in the past have I taken any part in procedural arguments in the house.
Business of the House


Mr. Winters:: This is different.


An hon. Member:: Why start now?


Harry Oliver White: Do not be in
a hurry. We have all winter to debate this matter if you like. Today we have seen something happen that has never occurred before in my experience.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: An unofficial attempt at
closure by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); that is what we have seen today.


Harry Oliver White: On many
occasions we have seen the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre get up and debate procedure and defend the rights of minorities. He has taken as much time as any member in the house, and in fact I would say the time of scores of members added together. But today, when all had been said that his party wanted to say, he was quite prepared to do away with the time of all the rest of the members. That is but an indication of the line of thought of socialists throughout the world. Once they come to power by democratic means it is not very long before they throw their weight around in an autocratic manner just as we have seen today, when they thought they had a chance of grasping power and immediately proceeded to attempt it. So I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair dough). I think we should get on with our work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: I do not
propose to be pushed into it by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or anyone else.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Wenlworlh):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White), never before have I taken part in a procedural debate during the short time I have been a member of this House of Commons. I think hon. members will admit that I have taken up very little time in this house, but I can stand here all night if necessary. We have seen today a most peculiar set of circumstances, the most peculiar I have seen since coming to this house. At eleven o'clock this morning a motion was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in cooperation, we will say, with others. At 2.30 this afternoon they had all the opportunity in the world to make any speeches they
2304	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
wanted to make because at that time the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) got up and made a proposition-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand there is only one Speaker in the House of Commons. The hon. member, who had the backing of this party, suggested that we should go through until twelve o'clock tonight if the hon. member was willing to withdraw his motion. Nothing was said by members of the C.C.F. or the Social Credit or by those on the government benches. Nobody made any attempt to accept that offer. C.C.F. members now say they wanted to speak, but if they had really wanted to they could have accepted the offer that was made at 2.30 this afternoon. I am ready to sit down if they want to take advantage of that opportunity. Apparently they are not willing to do so. After the hon. member for Eglinton spoke this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) threatened us with closure.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have not spoken in this debate before and I am not threatening anybody.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It might be just as well.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be just as well if the hon. member would leave it to the Speaker.


John Alpheus Charlton: If some of the hon. members behind the curtains or on the back benches would get on their feet and say what they thought, we might get along better.


An hon. Member:: It would be unparliamentary.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the Prime Minister had not made that statement this morning I think the situation would have been less heated today. The very fact that we are not allowing ourselves to be pushed around is one reason I am on my feet. If the big stick is to be wielded by the government, the only thing left for an opposition minority is to carry on the fight for its rights by any means left at its disposal.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I must rise again on a point of order. I want a definite ruling on the relevancy of what the hon. member is saying or I request leave to retire from the chamber.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We will let you go.


John Alpheus Charlton: The interruptions are helping us out.
I Mr. Charlton.]


James Garfield Gardiner: You are only killing time anyway.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is the principle we object to. It is that principle we are willing to fight for if we have to stay here until Christmas. If that principle were to be accepted, then I suggest seriously that any private member or any member on the government side could get up and move a similar motion and quash opposition in this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member referring to the motion?


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not clear just what the hon. member is referring to, but I would point out to him that he should direct his remarks not to the main motion or some other motion but to the amendment.


John Alpheus Charlton: I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was referring to the main motion. I am sorry; I was out of order. For the last week we have commenced our sittings each day at eleven in the morning and they have continued until one o'clock; then in the afternoon we have started at two-thirty for four days a week and continued until six fifteen, with evening sittings from eight until ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: We all know that.


An hon. Member:: If you did not know it you would not be here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: Those members who do not have to do very much in the house find those hours comparatively easy. They are not called upon to make a study of the various bills that are before the house.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Alpheus Charlton: I repeat that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: What that has to do with the motion, I do not know.


An hon. Member:: Nobody knows.


Mr. Speaker:: Either the motion or the amendment. May I ask the hon. member again to direct his remarks to the amendment.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think my referenpe to the fact that we sit from eleven o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night has a great deal to do with the amendment. We suggest that it would be better to have gone through until twelve o'clock tonight and thus be in a half decent condition to go ahead with legislation tomorrow. That would be much better than having to stay up all night and then continue tomorrow in a very tired state, with frayed nerves and probably frayed tempers.

With their huge majority members on the government side can have a two-hour nap at times and still have a fair number of members in the house, enough to carry on if we were to sit after twelve o'clock through to 10.30 in the morning. They are in a much better position than we are.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the amendment.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am speaking to the
amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not so sure.


John Alpheus Charlton: I appreciate your uncertainty because you probably cannot hear what I am saying.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We cannot understand what you are saying.


John Alpheus Charlton: Some hon. members would not understand it in any case. I still say that we would be in better shape to carry on the business of the house tomorrow if we were to close down at twelve o'clock tonight rather than carry on all night.
Mi. Winters: This is a demonstration of it.


John Alpheus Charlton: I can stand it if you can. If we do have to sit all night, I should like to see the same proportion of government members here as there is now. I intend to vote for the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Clyde Nowlan: This is hardly the time for the question. There was an opportunity for the question to be put on this matter early in the afternoon.


An hon. Member:: When?


George Clyde Nowlan: At 2.30 in the afternoon when the hon. member for Eglinton spoke. That is when there was an opportunity to settle the matter. The opportunity has been present since that time, and now I presume it is hoped the opposition may withdraw the amendment or that something else may happen. Possibly when it comes close to ten o'clock this amendment will be accepted by the house. I do not know, but perhaps then we would sit until twelve o'clock. The unfortunate thing about all this is that this time could have been saved, and the matter could have been dealt with more expeditiously earlier in the afternoon. When this motion appeared so suddenly this morning from the blue no one knew-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not blue.


Agar Rodney Adamson: From the red.


George Clyde Nowlan: My hon. friend I am sure would object if I said "red", but it appeared out of the blue-
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend's face is red.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not referring to political complexions. It is possible that there was some misunderstanding as to what was involved this morning and I think, Mr. Speaker, that suggests that possibly some consideration should be given to these rules which, as Your Honour properly ruled this morning, permit such motions without notice. Nevertheless, some consideration should be given in the future to making motions affecting hours of sitting the subject of notice, so members would know what they had to face when they came into the house. If we had known this morning all the circumstances involved in the motion, perhaps we would not have had this debate today.


An hon. Member:: You have made a mistake.


George Clyde Nowlan: No, there is no mistake whatever. I feel that this day will be recognized in parliamentary annals as a time when the opposition stood and insisted upon having certain rights preserved for opposition parties. In this case it is the official opposition, but it might just as easily be any of the opposition groups; and before too long it will be the present government that is sitting on this side of the house.
After all, Mr. Speaker, an extension of two hours is reasonable. I must say I think it is a tribute to members on all sides of the house that, considering the many hours of debate which have preceded this amendment, the pressure of the holiday season and so on, bad tempers have been restrained as well as they have. You, sir, have presided over this chamber for so many hours during what I know has been a long and boring debate. No matter how long or how boring it may be in detail it is important in substance, because we are preserving something here by this action which I think Speakers in the future, who occupy the chair which you now occupy, will recognize as a tribute to our parliamentary system in so far as the establishment of the rights of minorities is concerned, of whatever political complexion they may be.
You have pointed out, sir, that it is very difficult to debate the amendment as such without also trespassing upon the main, resolution; the two are so interwoven. You have a motion that the hours be extended indefinitely, and an amendment which extends the hours for a certain definite period. I think even a Philadelphia or a sea lawyer would find it very hard to establish the dividing line between the two. It is difficult to discuss the amendment without in some way infringing upon the main motion.

Business of the House
That, of course, has been recognized by you in the rulings you have given today permitting some latitude in this debate, and in maintaining the highest possible traditions of the Speaker's office. It is something which reflects credit upon Your Honour, and also upon the House of Commons as a whole.
There can be no question of imputing motives. There may have been at one time a misunderstanding, but the whole purpose of this debate has been to preserve certain rights.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The right to go to bed
early.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes; as one gets older one does think about that. Certainly, as was pointed out this afternoon, it is impossible to conduct business efficiently and deal with matters of importance, not only this one bill which is before us but other important measures, in the early hours of the morning. If this amendment is lost and another amendment is adopted by the house before ten o'clock, all of which are contingencies, it is quite possible that this house will be dealing with matters of importance to the nation; and certainly that cannot be done at three o'clock, four o'clock or five o'clock in the morning. That is why I suggest that the amendment not only preserves the rights of minorities or opposition groups; it goes further and assures that there shall be ample opportunity for intelligent discussion of measures which must be dealt with by this parliament before it ultimately prorogues.
The purpose of the first amendment, which was dealt with, was to establish the rights of minorities and the opposition in the face of what seemed like an attempt to steamroller this house. The amendment which is now before us accomplishes two purposes, not only assuring the rights of minority groups but also preserving the right of debate on those matters which may come before us. As has been said, the house has been sitting for a long time. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, even when you search parliamentary records, if you will find that a motion such as this amendment is attempting to avoid was adopted when there were still so many items on the order paper. We have all sat in parliaments which have sat through a night or a night and a day to clean up the business at the end of a session when there were only certain formal matters to be discussed. But that is not the situation here. Various matters of great importance have to be dealt with, and they cannot be dealt with in the manner suggested by the motion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).

I should like to urge again, although I believe this amendment should have been adopted earlier in the afternoon when the opportunity was given, that there is still an opportunity to proceed in an orderly way with the discussion until midnight. Then we could adjourn and go on with other matters tomorrow. If the house does not see fit to adopt this amendment, then I suggest that opposition groups will have to preserve their rights, and something must be done to do that.
I shall not trespass longer on the time of the house, sir, except to reiterate that there is still an opportunity to accept the principle which is involved in the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on this matter for a few moments because I feel that an extremely important principle is at stake. I feel that we in the opposition have a responsibility to the people whom we represent, and that it is at least as great as that of members who sit on the government benches. All we desire is to have the business of this house conducted in such a manner that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss the questions which are brought before us-and they are important ones at the present time-in a calm and reasoned fashion, under circumstances which will permit us to give them our intelligent, reasoned and unhurried attention. If that principle were recognized I feel that the business of this house would be expedited.
This afternoon I read with great interest a debate on this subject which took place in this house on March 18, 1926, when the present rules of the house were adopted. It was pointed out by many experienced politicians and statesmen of that time, including the late Mr. Lapointe, that we as a house should not sit on any occasion beyond the hour of eleven o'clock, in order that we should be in a position to give clear consideration to the important matters coming before us.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, there is still before us legislation which is of paramount importance to many people in this country. It is of great importance that the legislation about to be discussed should receive the best consideration we can give it.
We have certain responsibilities. I feel that we should not let the Christmas holidays interfere with the carrying out of our duties. I feel that we have a clear-cut duty to the people whom we represent, and that we should be willing to allow ourselves to be inconvenienced, if that is necessary, in order that the people whom we represent should be represented to the best of our ability. I

maintain that we cannot accomplish this purpose at five o'clock and six o'clock in the morning, after having sat all day. I feel that this house should not, under any circumstances, sit beyond midnight.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alphonse Fournier: Every one of the opposition said "no", Mr. Speaker. We all agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the house wish me to declare the amendment lost?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Sarto Fournier: They said no, but they will vote yes.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Harry Oliver White: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
On a question of privilege, I want to say that in a previous vote this day I voted on the understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had declared that members were free to vote as they pleased. I did not feel that that statement applied to subsequent amendments, and so tonight I have announced my pair.


Mr. Calherwood:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Huffman). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the debate proceeds I would ask you to rule as to whether the motion before you is now in order. If you consider the motion you will see that it is no longer operative in relation to the statement contained in it.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition has asked me to rule on whether the motion is now in order, because some time has elapsed since it was introduced. He says it is inoperative. It is not wholly inoperative. I think that is the point. The hon. member will recall that the motion was allowed to stand after the noon recess, when part of it was inoperative. Now, because still another part is inoperative I do not think I should rule it out of order. I will allow the motion to stand.

Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential to consider what stage we are at in this procedure today. We have had presented to us in the main motion a suggestion that the house continue in continuous sitting until the order paper has been cleared, and then the suggestion that if the order paper is not cleared by Friday night the house shall reassemble on December 27 for the conclusion of business.
I have already protested against the situation that will prevail under those circumstances, whereby hon. members from more distant regions of Canada, if they perform their parliamentary duties,, will be compelled to return to this place if the business is not completed on Friday, and either miss entirely that assembly at home that has become established in the customs of our country, the family gathering at Christmastime, or else, sir, have to leave on Christmas day to return to this city. I think if that proposal is carried out a really grave injustice will have been done.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member I think is addressing himself to the motion on the order paper, which is not now before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, there is a close linkage between the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the statements made in the course of the debate on that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow debate on a question which is on the order paper for tomorrow regarding the adjournment of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The motion as it stands is aimed at keeping this house in continuous session until the completion of business. We have pointed out that in our opinion this is a rather harsh treatment of the minority groups in the house. It compels them to continue without rest or relaxation, and suggests that matters which have not yet been debated will have to be considered on very short notice and under rather difficult conditions.
I believe an unusual record has been established at this session of parliament in extending it already beyond December 18, which has been normally the time for discontinuance on other occasions when parliament has assembled in the fall of the year. Looking at the various journals of the house I have noticed throughout that on occasions when parliament did meet in the fall the 18th or at the latest the 19th of December was the time when members were permitted to return to their homes.
TMr. Speaker.]
Now, after strenuous days of sitting, either in committee or here in the house, mornings, afternoons and evenings, we are called upon by the motion to continue throughout the night. There have been occasions in the past when that procedure met with approval. I think a more orderly arrangement of business is desirable, and that it should be possible to complete the normal business of parliament without having to resort to all-night sessions. If some catastrophe occurred in this country, or if a state of national emergency existed, I would be the last one to object. But under present circumstances I find I cannot support this motion at all.
The hon. member who has moved the motion suggests we would have ample opportunity to discuss any of the matters brought before us. But I suggest that under those circumstances, on any occasion when parliament is in session, someone could come forward with a similar motion and say, "Let us keep on without ceasing, and we might be able to conclude the business of the session in about seven days." The holding of night sittings is one recognized way of wearing down an opposition. It may have been the hope of some hon. members in the house that the opposition would be worn down on this occasion, and that various measures would be passed through without debate.
I think surely for the first time in Canada's history we have had placed before us the suggestion that in order to get home for Christmas we must have all-night sittings of the house to wind up the business, and the suggestion put before hon. members that if that is not done they will not enjoy the Christmas season with their families. I confess that I have been seriously disappointed on this occasion. I anticipated being home long ere this, and having the opportunity to make preparations for the Christmas season. It has been a disappointment to me and to many other hon. members that this has not been possible. But when there is a principle at stake, as there is in this instance, members of the official opposition are prepared to stand their ground and establish the right of members on the opposition side of the house to speak their minds and discuss to the full measures before the house, presenting in this fashion the opinions of their constituents.
This is the only place that can be done. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Meeker) remarked to me this afternoon that, despite this long and drawn-out debate, despite the peculiar conditions that have prevailed during the last day or two, it really is a remarkable and very fine thing that in

this country we can speak our minds with freedom. It is a privilege well worth maintaining.
During the course of my life I have had a profound respect for the institution of parliament. That is why, although new to this chamber, I have taken some part in the deliberations on this particular point. In any instance where there appears to me to be a limitation of the rights of private members, I hope I will be able to say something about it. The institution of parliament is too important to our country and to the British commonwealth to be lightly regarded.
On this particular occasion it has appeared to us-certainly it has to me-that some of the rights and privileges of private members have been in danger of being curtailed. I would much prefer that the well established rules of procedure of the House of Commons be followed without any such serious alterations as that suggested by the motion before us. This is an institution which at times has come in for considerable criticism by people outside. Alternative methods of government have been proposed elsewhere in the world. They have attracted the attention of some people, but I for one am thankful that I can hold fast to the parliamentary institution we have devised, with the rights of private members, and maintain unimpaired the privileges of members of parliament. If it were not for the fact that the privileges of members of parliament are in danger now of being curtailed I would not be participating in this debate. If this is to become a precedent for the future I think the time to oppose it is right now.
We had a first class suggestion that any similar attempt to alter the rules of the house should require adequate notice. If we had been given adequate notice of this particular proposal perhaps some compromise could have been worked out, or saner counsel might have prevailed. When from time to time the rules of the house are under consideration for alteration or change that is one thing that certainly should be taken into account. In view of the fact that the amendment which was proposed earlier was not acceptable to the house, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I propose the following amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "That" and substituting the following:
"for this day's sitting the house shall after the dinner recess sit from 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m."


George James McIlraith: How ridiculous can you get?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Winnipeg South 94699-1471
Business of the House
Centre (Mr. Churchill) who has just spoken, I am very thankful at this hour of the day and under these circumstances for the protection of the rules of the house.


George James McIlraith: Protection of the rules?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Abuse of the rules.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am thankful to have the privilege of living in a democracy, because judging from the comments coming from members on the opposite side of the house just at about this stage of the proceedings we on this side would be eaten alive if it were not for the protection which is provided.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Pretty indigestible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Tough.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I admit it would be a bad case of indigestion.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The word is "licence".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Obviously the grand strategy of leaving several important pieces of legislation until the final week of the session, which has led up to the situation we face, was devised with the intention of avoiding the necessity of detailed debate. I imagine it was anticipated that members of the opposition would fold their tents like the Arabs and silently steal away. It must be a considerable disappointment to government members who hoped to deal with this legislation without having it given the attention it deserves. It seems to me that we might just as well have government by order in council if we are not going to be allowed full opportunity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but now that we have an amendment his remarks must relate to it and not to the main motion. There is an amendment before the house, and for the hon. member to be in order he must relate his remarks only to the amendment.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He wouldn't know. He is too young.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I apologize if I have
wandered from the amendment, but I was under the impression that in order to discuss the amendment it was necessary to deal with the major motion before us.


An hon. Member:: You will know better now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We shall proceed to the discussion of the amendment that has just been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). He has proposed that we extend the sitting for the present day to the hour of 10.30 p.m. In view of the nature of today's discussion and the attempt to rush proceedings in order to meet the Christmas

Business of the House
deadline, I heartily concur in the amendment. I do so because, as I have said previously in the discussion, there is a principle at stake. The only opportunity the minority has to indicate its wishes, intentions and desires is through the right of parliamentary discussion. I think the only solution for the present situation is to accept the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Therefore I intend to vote for the amendment in the hope of thus being able to register a protest against the tactics that have been pursued in the house. This is the first time I have experienced them, but I understand they have been pursued on other occasions. In thus registering my protest I trust it will end once and for all the practice of railroading legislation, the practice of steamrollering legislation, andi will provide for the logical and reasonable discussion required on the very important matters still remaining on the agenda.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to citation 405 in Beauchesne's second edition, which reads as follows:
The Speaker may refuse to propose an amendment which is in his opinion frivolous.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the hon. member is-


Some hon. Members:: He is on a point of order.


Jean Lesage: The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was presented at ten minutes past nine. The normal closing hour is ten o'clock. After the childish delaying tactics that have been used by the opposition all day it is obvious that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre not only is frivolous but has as its only aim to have us waste our time and the money of the people of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is a very late hour in the day for the hon. member to have discovered that the people of Canada are losing money because of the action of this government and those who support it. I would point out that we did not introduce the original motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to speak on the point of order.


George Alexander Drew: I am speaking to the point raised by the member who has just sat down. That hon. member raised a question to which Your Honour took no exception, that you should bear in mind that public money was being wasted. I propose to direct my attention
fMr Dins dale, i
to that remark for a few minutes. You have not ruled him out of order so I submit that that stands as a matter before the house and I propose to deal with it.


Jean Lesage: On a question of privilege, I withdraw my remark that the opposition has been wasting the money of the public.


George Alexander Drew: I am speaking on the point of order. I have this much respect for the views of the hon. member; I assumed that he was being serious. Perhaps I was wrong, but I assumed he was being serious and, therefore, that when he spoke of money that had been wasted by the discussion here he was placing that before you in support of his contention that this motion was frivolous. Otherwise it was a most frivolous comment and one that was entirely inexcusable under the circumstances.
The bon. member has raised the question of the waste of public money. May I remind you that the motion that caused this debate was introduced not by us but by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It was received with immediate and solid acclaim by the members of the Liberal party. In spite of the opportunities which have been presented to proceed with the business of the house-


George James McIlraith: Let us vote.


George Alexander Drew: I wish you would hear what I am saying, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear you very well.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish you to be in any difficulty in that respect, and for that reason I shall pause if I feel there may be any difficulty in your hearing. The situation is simply that we urged early in the day that this motion be abandoned so we could get ahead with the business of the house which dealt with the money of the people of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -which dealt with the money and the general interests of the people of this country. Later, so there could be no doubt about our position, we stated clearly that we wished the house to sit until twelve o'clock. Had that proposal been accepted-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order, I wonder if the leader of the opposition would inform us whether he is speaking to the point of order or in the debate.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the minister of make-believe knows


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think what my hon. friend is doing is leading his party into another Newfoundland fiasco.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is very difficult for me because there are two points of order before the house. Am I to understand that the leader of the opposition is speaking on the first point of order?


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the minister of make-believe was-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I rise to a point of order and suggest that when my hon. friend refers to the minister of make-believe he is not using a proper parliamentary term and should withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think that was
one of the most generous expressions that have been used. May I point out that it was used by one of the members of the Liberal party. I would point out that the Minister of Justice took no-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would like a ruling on the
point of order.


George Alexander Drew: I shall not give way until I
have finished the sentence at any rate.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out-


An hon. Member:: Name him.


An hon. Member:: Who is running the
house?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hope you heard the suggestion that you should name me. Not only do they want to wield a club over our procedure, they want to deny speech to hon. members of this house. I would point out that the term I employed was a term which I understood to be one of affection used by one of the Liberal members. I must say that it is an infinitely more generous term than could have been used in reference to a minister who broke the law which he is now seeking to have amended in this house. I return to the subject I was discussing when he interrupted.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I believe the statement made by the leader of the opposition should be withdrawn, and it should be withdrawn now without any more discussion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, may
I point out that the expression-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have two points
of order before the house.
Business of the House


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was intending to deal witn
the most recently raised point. Am I correct in doing so?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As to whether or not the
motion is in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me that the expression used by the leader of the opposition is not very courteous. I think it would be better not to use those expressions.


George Alexander Drew: I am proceeding now to deal
with the statement that was made in regard to money that had been wasted. In dealing with that-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


James Sinclair: I also would like to rise on
this point of order. The expression "minister of make-believe" is almost as offensive as though I were to call the leader of the opposition "a pompous jackass leading a bunch of filibusters." It is obviously true, nevertheless I would not use an expression like that about him in this house no matter what I thought about it. I think in fairness to the house the hon. member should withdraw his offensive expression "the minister of make-believe".


George Alexander Drew: Had that remark come from
anyone else but the member for Coast-Capilano I might have taken some notice, but in view of the fact that it came from a member who has so completely discredited himself in this debate I will not even bother paying any attention to it at this time. I was dealing with the subject of the cost of the proceedings to the taxpayer, and the point raised by the hon. member who spoke on that subject.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the point of order; if I
am not mistaken, what is now before the house is the point of order raised by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet to the effect that the amendment now before the house is frivolous. That is the matter now before the house; and if the leader of the opposition is talking intelligently about anything at all he must be addressing himself to that point of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect
the minister to whom I have referred to follow the debate closely because he never does. I am dealing with the point that was raised by the member who spoke about the amount of money that was being wasted. I was pointing out, .when I was interrupted from several quarters, that the motion before the house is one that was introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Business of the House


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I must again rise on the point of order. I submit that the matter which is before the house at the present time is the point of order that the amendment is frivolous. I think we are entitled to have that ruled upon before we proceed to the next matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order raised by the member for Montmagny-L'islet (Mr. Lesage) is that the amendment before the house is a frivolous one. I am ready to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on that point.


George Alexander Drew: You see, Mr. Speaker, it would help a great deal if I were able to finish a single sentence, because that is exactly what I am dealing with. I was assuming, and perhaps wrongly, that the hon. member who raised the question about public money being wasted was speaking seriously, and was raising that in relation to his point of order that this was a frivolous motion. There was, of course, no other possible reason for him to raise it. If he will permit me to continue, and will follow the sequence, I would point out-


Ralph Melville Warren: You cannot continue all night.


George Alexander Drew: I was simply pointing out that the motion introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and which has been before us all day, is one that could have been disposed of long ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I do want you to hear me, Mr. Speaker. We have been dealing not simply with a question as to whether we would discuss one measure or another, but whether or not this house was going to sit all night and consequently not only be unable to do a job tonight but unable to do the work of this house tomorrow. That has been the real issue before the members of this house.


Ralph Melville Warren: Why?


George Alexander Drew: May I in courtesy answer the question of the hon. member? I shall explain to the hon. member, since he asked me, that the reason is that there was a motion introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre this morning, and there was an amendment introduced in relation to that motion. The motion was under discussion until early this afternoon-


Ralph Melville Warren: Yes, all day.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to explain to the hon. member, and give him an answer to his question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I will hear the leader of the opposition on the point of order.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to finish my explanation to the hon. member in answer to his question. I shall just finish by saying that this afternoon, at a time when the hon. member was not here, there was another amendment introduced upon which a vote has recently been taken. That brings him up to date, except that the motion which has just been made introduced a further amendment.


Ralph Melville Warren: I was here.


George Alexander Drew: I am very happy to know that. Therefore we have brought the hon. member up to date on the proceedings.
When we come to the question of whether or not the motion is frivolous, may I suggest that this is a very late hour in the day to suggest that this amendment is frivolous.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is not late.


George Alexander Drew: I do regret that you are having so much difficulty in hearing this discussion. I shall wait until you are able to hear me without interruption. We have all day been discussing the original motion, and motions by way of amendment, which had to do with the time during which this house should sit today. Unless all the motions by way of amendment were frivolous, and that point has not been raised up to this time, then this motion must certainly not be frivolous. I say that because the substance of the motion is precisely the same, and there is simply a difference in time. The opposition is making an effort to co-operate with the government and find an hour that is agreeable to them. ' We are making that effort by a process of trial and error, or shall we say trial and refusal.
We now have before the house a suggestion that we should not, in view of the fact that we are approaching so close to the hour of ten o'clock, close off sharply at ten o'clock, but we should extend the time for another half hour. If members will accept this motion now, then they will have an opportunity to pave the way for an orderly discussion of the business which is coming before the house tomorrow. I suggest that unless any motion by way of amendment to set a time for the sitting of this house is regarded as frivolous, then this cannot be frivolous because the only difference between this and any other motion is that we have in our constant efforts to meet the wishes of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -introduced a new time in the motion, in the hope that the members would give it their approval.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, if I may address just a few words to this point of order, I would point out that there was an amendment to the motion moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that this house should sit until 10.15. After debate on it at great length by a number of speakers from the official opposition, it was voted upon and defeated. The motion is now moved to add another fifteen minutes to the time which has already been defeated, and I suggest that under those circumstances this amendment is frivolous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will not mind if I say a word to correct what he said about the amendment moved by the member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). The minister was right as to the total number of minutes that amendment added to the normal day's sitting, but that amendment proposed to add fifteen minutes at 6.15 rather than at ten o'clock at night.
The Minister of Justice has drawn attention to the real point of this amendment, namely that it proposes something which, in principle, the house has already turned down; that is, a short extension of today's sitting. I draw your attention not only to citation 405 which the member for Mont-magny-L'Islet quoted, but to citation 413 which reads:
No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by a vote on a former amendment.
By its vote earlier today the house turned down the usefulness of a fifteen-minute extension. The house has also turned down the usefulness of a two-hour extension. To come along now and propose an extension by half an hour seems to me, whether it is frivolous or not, certainly to call in question a principle upon which the house has already given a decision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall give a ruling on the point of order. I must say that many things came before the house which, in my opinion, were fairly frivolous. In my view the amendment is not any worse than many of the other things that came before the house. At this stage of the debate I think it is preferable to allow the amendment to stay before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What was your ruling, Mr. Speaker? We could not hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment stays before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You mean that it is in order? Thank you.	*
Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the question of the motion before the house. While this extension may not be as great as some hon. members would wish, I would point out that if there is any indication from the government-and of course I am dealing with this as a government motion because we know that it is-that they are prepared to support this motion, then we will have three-quarters of an hour in which to dispose of certain details.


Hughes Cleaver: After wasting the whole day.


Jean Lesage: That shows how serious you are.


George James McIlraith: Keep your tongue out of your cheek when you talk in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Steamroller.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How about some of these unparliamentary expressions, Mr. Speaker?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: To make it possible to carry on until 10.30 would this motion have to be voted on before ten o'clock?


George Alexander Drew: Yes. To answer that question, I have indicated that if the leader of the house will say that he is prepared to support this amendment, then of course we can proceed with the business of the house until 10.30.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: He cannot speak for all the house.


Mr. Maltais:: He cannot speak for me.


Sarto Fournier: He
can speak for himself but not for me.


George Alexander Drew: At this hour of the night and at this stage of the session-


Ralph Melville Warren: What is wrong with this hour of the night?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the hon. member's question. There is nothing wrong with this hour of the night. As a matter of fact it is a splendid hour of the night. We have been trying to suggest all day that this is a good hour of the night.


Ralph Melville Warren: Yes; that is right.


George Alexander Drew: We have been trying to suggest that we would do our business much better if we recognized that fact.


Ralph Melville Warren: We do.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, at this hour of the night I am glad I have found one convert. I am at least pleased that my arguments have borne that much fruit anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Ralph Melville Warren: Question.

Business of the House


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. I wish the Speaker to have an opportunity to hear what is being said.


Ralph Melville Warren: Time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I was just pointing out to the hon. member who has come to the same conclusion that we have-


Sarto Fournier: You
know why.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, I know why.


Pierre Gauthier: Quite a success. That is a victory.


George Alexander Drew: As a result of the extended deliberations of the committee which was set up to consider the hours of business of this house, it was agreed by the members that ten o'clock was the time at which this house could best conclude its activities in the interests of the public business and in the interests of the members themselves. This matter of late sittings is no new subject. I should therefore like to recall that this subject has been under discussion in this house on a great many occasions in the past.


Ralph Melville Warren: Do not bother. We know that.


James Sinclair: There is your convert.


George Alexander Drew: My hon. friend should realize that he is so completely converted that he needs no more assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Melville Warren: Don't bother about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking further converts now. I wish to read into the record what was said in this house on June 1, 1926, in regard to this question of late sittings, by the then hon. member for Macleod. It is recorded at page 3918 of Hansard of that year. He had this to say:
I see no reason why a body of sensible and reasonable men could not devise rules under which we would not need to sit both night and day.
I have read lately with much interest a speech which was delivered in this house in the year 1907. I would like to present to the house, and I will guarantee not to take more than a few minutes, a few of the statements made on that occasion by Mr. Wright, the then member for South Renfrew-
Not North Renfrew.
-because they deal with this particular question and they seem to me to be very pertinent.
Mr. Wright on that occasion called attention to the long hours that had to be put in and the arduous work that a private member had to do if he took his duties seriously, as I think every member of parliament should. I know personally of one member of this house, who was at work

yesterday morning at twenty minutes to nine. That member was still here last night at midnight, and was then asked to vote on a motion to adjourn the debate. Any member who voted against that motion was liable to the censure of a large number of the members of this house. That member had to be here again this morning to attend to his correspondence, then he had to attend a certain committee at 10.30, stay there until one o'clock, then rush out and get his lunch, and get back to this chamber at three o'clock this afternoon, and possibly he will be required to stay here until midnight again tonight. I ask the house and the government if that is a sensible way to carry on the business of this country. If these remarks apply to the private member, they apply with even greater force to the Prime Minister and to the members of the government. What chance have these men to get a decent night's sleep under such conditions?
Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked over and over again. What chance has anyone to get a decent night's sleep if irregular hours are called for, and what chance has any member to do the business of this house the following day in a manner which indicates that he is able to devote to that subject the attention which it deserves?
This again is a subject which has been dealt with at Westminster as well. In an excellent publication which has just appeared within the past few weeks, entitled "The House of Commons at Work" by Eric Taylor, I find this reference to long hours of siting:
It used to be the case-


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Might I ask your ruling as to whether the leader of the opposition is speaking to the amendment?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Certainly he is speaking to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I must admit I have not heard all that has been said by the leader of the opposition, as I just came to the chair a couple of minutes ago. From what I heard it did occur to me that he is speaking more on hours generally. He is referring to late sittings, and the amendment before the house is merely for an additional half hour. Under the circumstances I do not think that could be considered a late sitting.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. I am supporting my argument that it is not wise to go beyond 10.30, in view of the position this debate has now reached, and I am calling to my support arguments that have been made in regard to that very matter.


Hughes Cleaver: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood the leader of the opposition to say that he was talking against and citing references and authorities in opposition to the main motion. The amendment he is supporting is that we should adjourn at 10.30.


George Alexander Drew: That is quite right. We have been pointing out that it does relate to 10.30, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that our earlier efforts to find an hour that was suitable to the government did not meet with success, we are putting forward an hour that perhaps might meet with greater success, and I am bringing to my support responsible writers on parliamentary procedure to indicate that perhaps it is better to fix the maximum hour as 10.30 in the hope that the government, since they would not accept our earlier amendment, may accept this one.


Hughes Cleaver: Let us vote and find out.


George Alexander Drew: I will read this:
It used to be the case, until 1888, that the house sat on until members were too tired to talk any more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I continue:
There was always a danger of some grossly healthy individuals arriving as fresh as paint about 10 o'clock, and keeping other members who had borne the burden and heat of the day out of bed until the small hours. Many a man has found his constitution seriously impaired by the strain of assiduous attendance until late hours. "Here I am again," writes Macaulay to his sister in 1831, "sitting up in the House of Commons until three o'clock five days in the week, and getting indigestion at great dinners the remaining two." Some famous statesmen seemed to be especially constituted for this sort of life:	Palmerston, for instance, who was quite as fresh at three o'clock in the morning as at three o'clock in the afternoon; Sir Robert Peel, whose capacity for endurance must have been prodigious, and Gladstone, whose habit of keeping the house into the early hours of the morning roused members to constant fury.
Then there is a further discussion of certain of the rules. If I may, I should like to read one sentence more:
The survivors were limp and sleepy, and even the higher officials seemed in a state of abject misery.


Mr. Speaker:: May I just comment on the point made. I do think that the extract the leader of the opposition read refers more to the main motion than to the amendment, as a reason why the main motion should not be adopted. May I ask him to direct his remarks to the amendment and endeavour to establish why the amendment should be'adopted.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have put on
record certain views which it seemed to me were indicative of reasons why the amendment is necessary; and after all, in order to demonstrate why an amendment which would prevent our sitting all night is necessary, it does seem to be desirable to bring forward arguments which support that proposition. The reason this amendment is before the house is that we have not yet succeeded in our earlier attempts at finding an hour that was satisfactory to the government.
Business of the House


Hughes Cleaver: You are only fooling yourself when you talk that way.


Jean Lesage: That is easy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I prefer to accept statements of a minister of the crown as to what the position of the government is in regard to this matter, and I had been hoping that perhaps the leader of the house might have indicated some willingness to deal with it.


James Garfield Gardiner: He has not had a chance.


George Alexander Drew: However, he has not done so. I am afraid my time is limited to put forward all the views that I should have liked to mention on this amendment.


Hughes Cleaver: Read some more magazines.


George Alexander Drew: But I do want to say this, Mr. Speaker. No amendment that has been put forward today, and certainly not this motion by way of amendment, has been put forward in any frivolous manner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: If I have met-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To what a level the grand old Tory party has sunk.


George Alexander Drew: If I have met laughter with laughter it is simply because it seemed desirable to treat the levity of the government in that way instead of treating it with the anger that those who believe in the responsibilities of parliament should express in regard to conduct of this kind. What this amendment was directed to was to attempt to destroy the opportunity for debate by forcing hon. members to sit all night and until tomorrow, at a time when there is important business before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is entirely against the rules of order to impute motives other than those stated by the person concerned. That was not the motive of the motion I moved at eleven o'clock this morning.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, -


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am able to see the o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: After all, Mr. Speaker, I am simply indicating quite clearly what the obvious effect of the motion is, and I hope what has happened today will convince this government that the opposition has rights and that they are not going to submit to the big stick. However, I ask you to call it ten o'clock.

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock I propose to adjourn this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: I do not think this would be the time to come to some agreement, so I had better announce the business of the house for tomorrow. I hope that tomorrow everybody will be in a very good mood and we can proceed with the business of the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will.


Alphonse Fournier: I know the hon. gentlemen will co-operate tomorrow perhaps more than today. There are two government notices of motion: one by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and one by the Prime Minister. We will not proceed with the motion in the name of the Secretary of

State for External Affairs before dealing with Bill No. 36 to amend the Combines Investigation Act, but after that tomorrow we will take up that resolution, and then we will take up Bill No. 15, also concerning external affairs, and Bill No. 23, to amend the Government Annuities Act; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture; and if time were left, we would take up the amendment to the Public Works Act. I have not said a word during the debate today because I did not see that I could be of any help, but tomorrow anything I can do to help the house come to some agreement to pass legislation-well, I am at your disposal.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Talk to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 21, 1951